+ Reply to thread
Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: Why doesn't the errancy of the Bible mean that there's no God

  1. #1
    Oliphaunt Rube E. Tewesday's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    7,743

    Default Why doesn't the errancy of the Bible mean that there's no God

    I've just started Bart Ehrman's new book, Jesus Interrupted, kind of an popular introduction to the historical critical approach to the New Testament. A point that he makes up front is that noticing the inconsistencies and historical errors in the Bible doesn't mean that you have to give up your religious faith. He himself remained a liberal Christian for years after he stopped being a fundamentalist, and became an agnostic because when he could no longer reconcile and all-powerful and all good God with the world's suffering. And it's certainly true that many intelligent people believe that the Bible is telling us something important about God, even if you can't believe every word.

    But let me ask, Why? This is God we're talking about. Why would he choose to communicate through a messed up, hobbled together collection of stories. Aren't the fundamentalists right when they say that when you've rejected inerrancy, you've rejected God? Why isn't it that simple?

  2. #2
    Member
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    61

    Default Re: Why doesn't the errancy of the Bible mean that there's no Go

    I've a possible reason for this. A clear message means there can only be one message, and that is it. But it still has to be acceptable to the audience. If the Bible had a clear, consistent message that was the one interpreted thousands of years ago, today you wouldn't be able to seperate slavery or stonings or the like from Christianity. It probably wouldn't be that popular (nor would adherents be all that popular with everyone else). Likewise, if the Bible's clear message was the one as interpreted by mainstream churches today, it would be far too radically liberal for people thousands of years ago. An unclear message means that, in both times, the message can still can get across some truthfulness without sticking to a message that won't be popular.
    Opportunity is missed by most people, because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. Thomas Edison

  3. #3
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    158

    Default Re: Why doesn't the errancy of the Bible mean that there's no Go

    I think that it means you have to look critically at whether or not there is any other evidence for whether or not god exists. Typically when we have a source of information that contains (for example) 100 claims, if 99 of them are true facts, then it does suggest that the 100th is probably also true.

    But when you think about a book like that, it's not going to be like the ONLY place you see those 100 claims, and the evidence supporting them, are in that single book. When presented with the Bible and the whole of the evidence, two things become obvious:

    Firstly, many of the claimed facts in the book (both Old and New Testaments) are not true facts. They are exaggerations, mistakes, or outright lies that are proven as such by looking at other sources in which the evidence directly contradicts the testimony.

    Second, of those factual claims that are not directly contradicted by evidence, we find that there simply is no evidence. The claim that god exists falls into this category. Evidence for the existence of a god doesn't exist, and we can no more find evidence against than we can find evidence that unicorns, space teapots, and flying spaghetti monsters do not exist.

    Add to this the fact that a book supposedly written by an all-knowing god contains no indication whatsoever that this god knew anything of the earth outside the small area of desert in which these nomadic tribes lived, and it's impossible to reach any conclusion other than that there almost certainly is no god. That is, unless one is particularly good at willful self delusion.

    I know delusion is a loaded term, but it is also an accurate one. What other term is there for one who steadfastly believes in the truth of a fact that isn't true? The voice in a person's head that they really believe is someone else doesn't become less of a delusion if the voice's name is god.

  4. #4
    Member
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Twin Cities, Mn.
    Posts
    33

    Default Re: Why doesn't the errancy of the Bible mean that there's no Go

    Strictly speaking, one can believe in God without believing that the Bible is a reliable source of information him. Some people also find ways to read it as a collection of allegory and symbols rather than literal history. Certainly, that's the only way Genesis can be salvaged by anyone who's even trying to think critically.

    Also, strictly speaking, a supreme being can hypothetically exist without the Bible having a single accurate word to say about it.

    I think that most people who try to think critically and are intellectually honest with themselves do tend to find it harder and harder to justify Biblical authority to themselves, and for many, that's enough to reevaluate or abandon any faith that God exists at all.

    For those who cling to specific Biblically based religious beliefs even with full awareness of the Bible's glaringly human origins, the answer I've most often heard is that it's just a certain kind of subjective personal certainty that some kind of God exists. Sometimes this certainty derives from what they feel are genuine divine revelations. Liberal, Polycarp and Lekatt have all said this, for instance (I suppose it's probably noteworthy, though, that all of those examples are quite ecumenical in their beliefs, and that none of them are anything close to Scriptural fundies ), and for some others, I think they are more emotionally invested in their religion as a cultural or personal identifier, and are averse to calling it invalid because it's a "supporting wall" of sorts for all kinds of other identity issues and assumptions.

    I havea personal hypothesis about why I think a lot of people stick with religion, even when they have a lot of doubt. I think there are a significant number of people who just don't like the idea that their parents could have been wrong. Richard Dawkins proposes that one reason so many far-fetched religious beliefs get perpetuated from one generation to the other is that it's an evolutionary artifact of young children being hardwired to trust their parents implicitly. Kids that ignore their parents' instructions to stay away from the crocodiles get eaten by crocodiles, so there's a certain amount of genetic coding which programs kids to believe what their moms and dads tell them. It can often literally make the difference between life and death. This means that garbage information like religious and superstotious beliefs are given the same level of import by young, developing brains as the instruction not to pick up the shiny red snake, or not to eat the poisonous berries.

    I think a lot of people, on a subconcsious level, still regard their parents as the templates for what constitutes "correct" moral, political, ethical. religious, social, etc. behaviours and beliefs, and that to admit to themselves that their parents could have been so egregiously wrong about something so seemingly important as religion knd of puls the rug out from under then for all kinds of other things as well.

    In my opinion (and this just a subjective impression of course), I think this kind of phenomenon can be observed quite often in people who grew up with very domineering, authoritarian fathers -- the kind who are the least likely to ever admit that they CAN be wrong about anything.

    Of course, those kinds of dads can just as easily lead to the "fuck you, dad, I'm going to go to San Francisco and become a neo-pagan drag queen" as well, but it seems to me like most everyone I've ever met who had a very strong "traditionalist," dogmatic, religious outlook, had a parent like that too -- so have most of the really strident atheists as well, though. That kind of upbringing doesn't seem to produce too many moderates. It's either total capitualtion or total rebellion.

  5. #5
    Oliphaunt Rube E. Tewesday's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    7,743

    Default Re: Why doesn't the errancy of the Bible mean that there's no Go

    Hmmm...that idea about honoring your father being pretty much hard-wired is an interesting one. I wonder if a decent empirical study could be done on it, by someone with research dollars.

    I know that there are a lot of "holy" books other than the Bible, but I'm particularly interested in the Bible, since it's the book of my own particular culture. It still tends to be revered, but I'm not sure how many people have more than a general idea what's in it, even among believers. I just finished Ehrman's book, and he tells an interesting anecdote. He teaches in the southern U.S., so every year his undergraduate class is pretty much entirely devoted Christians. On the first day, he asks them "How many believe the Bible is the inspired word of God?" Pretty much every hand goes up. "How many of you have read a Harry Potter Book?" Pretty much every hand goes up. "How many of you have read the entire Bible?" Only a few hands. Here are people who believe that there's a book that contains the inspired words of the creator of the universe, and fewere of them are prepared to read it than read J.K. Rowling. What's that about? ( I realize of course that it provides a partial answer to my initial question, since so few people realize there's an errancy in the first place)

  6. #6
    Registered user
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3

    Default Re: Why doesn't the errancy of the Bible mean that there's no Go

    If the bible is errant (and I'm not suggesting one way or the other here), that doesn't mean there is no God. There might be a God (or Gods) that just isn't the same as the Christian conception (see other religions).

  7. #7
    Elephant
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Garden Spot of the South
    Posts
    592

    Default Re: Why doesn't the errancy of the Bible mean that there's no Go

    Quote Originally posted by Ken S.
    I think a lot of people, on a subconcsious level, still regard their parents as the templates for what constitutes "correct" moral, political, ethical. religious, social, etc. behaviours and beliefs, and that to admit to themselves that their parents could have been so egregiously wrong about something so seemingly important as religion knd of puls the rug out from under then for all kinds of other things as well.

    In my opinion (and this just a subjective impression of course), I think this kind of phenomenon can be observed quite often in people who grew up with very domineering, authoritarian fathers -- the kind who are the least likely to ever admit that they CAN be wrong about anything.
    I strongly agree with your assessment. Not to hijack too much, but I have observed the problem of "inherited racism" stick very closely along these lines. "If Daddy said that interracial marriages were an abomination, then I'm not going to let interracial couples in my home". Doesn't matter how much logic you throw at such a person, they are so terrified of being torn from the model of "Daddy's always right" that they cannot make that leap to the other side. It would mean that everything they'd been taught was wrong, and to admit that would instantly remove all of their framework of 'what life's all about' - it would be cataclysmic for them. Heresy, if you will.
    This message brought to you by NinetyWt, the Queen of Lubricants™.

  8. #8
    Member
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    35

    Default Re: Why doesn't the errancy of the Bible mean that there's no Go

    Nowhere in the Bible does it say, "This is the book that God wrote." If you start with the unbiblical assumption that that's what the Bible is, then of course it makes sense to expect better from God. But if you take the Bible for what it appears to present itself as - a collection of histories, stories, and letters written by human beings to describe their own (aleged) experiences of God (along with those of their community and their ancestors) - then it is perfectly reasonable to believe both that it contains accurate and valuable information about a diety and that it is full of human errors.

    The idea that God is literally the author of the Bible is a definitely minority view among Christians. The vast majority believe that God directly inspired the writing and gave the authors the message to communicate, but that like any other celebrity, he left the actual writing to his (holy) ghostwriters.

  9. #9
    Member
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    9

    Default Re: Why doesn't the errancy of the Bible mean that there's no Go

    Quote Originally posted by Rube E. Tewesday
    I've just started Bart Ehrman's new book, Jesus Interrupted, kind of an popular introduction to the historical critical approach to the New Testament. A point that he makes up front is that noticing the inconsistencies and historical errors in the Bible doesn't mean that you have to give up your religious faith. He himself remained a liberal Christian for years after he stopped being a fundamentalist, and became an agnostic because when he could no longer reconcile and all-powerful and all good God with the world's suffering. And it's certainly true that many intelligent people believe that the Bible is telling us something important about God, even if you can't believe every word.

    But let me ask, Why? This is God we're talking about. Why would he choose to communicate through a messed up, hobbled together collection of stories. Aren't the fundamentalists right when they say that when you've rejected inerrancy, you've rejected God? Why isn't it that simple?
    Interesting. I've read a couple of Ehrman's books and have been thinking about getting this one.
    As Allan indicated, there's no indication that it was God's plan that we have some final authoritative writing as some instruction manual. As with all books about God, we personally interpret them and decide what they mean to us. If there's communication going on it's the inner person that's doing it. Books or whatever tools we use just stimulates the process.

    When you get down to it the Bible isn't that complicated of confusing unless you decide to give it more meaning and importance than it deserves. Jesus said the most important commandments are Love God and love your neighbor. There's a lifetime worth of work right there.

    IMHO, as someone who's gone from Christian to spiritually leaning agnostic, if God exists the only real word of God is our inner connection. Our spirit that seeks truth and understanding. If we have that inner connection available to us then we don't need an authoritative book. Written words only serve to assist in that inner search and most "Holy Books" are man's attempt to express that inner experience.

  10. #10
    Content Generator AllWalker's avatar
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Antipodea
    Posts
    1,479

    Default Re: Why doesn't the errancy of the Bible mean that there's no Go

    One way of looking at it is that if the Bible can't even get history or science right, how can we trust it to get religion right?

    One possible rebuttal is that it is a book of religion, not history or science, so it doesn't have to get those parts right.

    The value of these arguments depends a lot on your own perspective on the issue.
    Something tells me we haven't seen the last of foreshadowing.

  11. #11
    Elephant
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    806

    Default Re: Why doesn't the errancy of the Bible mean that there's no Go

    If there's no GO, then I'm never going to pass it and collect my $200.
    I reserve the right to be bothered by things that don't faze you,
    and to cheerfully ignore things that bug the shit out of you.
    I am not you.

  12. #12
    Registered user
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3

    Default Re: Why doesn't the errancy of the Bible mean that there's no Go

    Quote Originally posted by Chimera
    If there's no GO, then I'm never going to pass it and collect my $200.
    If I were a chick I'd offer to have your kids.

  13. #13
    Member
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    On Veronica Lake
    Posts
    86

    Default Re: Why doesn't the errancy of the Bible mean that there's no Go

    Quote Originally posted by Rube E. Tewesday
    * * *
    But let me ask, Why? This is God we're talking about. Why would he choose to communicate through a messed up, hobbled together collection of stories. Aren't the fundamentalists right when they say that when you've rejected inerrancy, you've rejected God? Why isn't it that simple?
    Interesting that Ehrman has done a revised edition of Bruce Metzger's The Text of the New Testament[sup:1d00tw7e]1[/sup:1d00tw7e]. That dovetails nicely with my response: why would God go through all the trouble of creating a perfect Bible and then put its transmission in the hands of imperfect copyists So whether the original was inerrant or not, the copies we have now all have demonstrable errors in them, and it is often impossible to reconstruct the original.

    I picture Saint John scribbling out his inerrant Apocalypse while the guy in the next room is making an errant copy of one of Paul's epistles.

    And of course, even if we grant an inerrant Scripture, the formulation given in the OP utterly ignores the problem of hermeneutics (a term that I suspect few True Believers are familiar with). Whose interpretation is correct? Yours? Mine? Joseph Smith's?
    _____
    1. It's rare that one finds a technical book with a good sense of humor. Example: in the section where Metzger discusses the medieval custom of poking small holes in the vellum to give the copyists some layout help, he begins a footnote with, "There is even a science of pin-pricks!" (exclamation mark his) And forgive the formatting problem in this post caused by the use of a superscript. I saw a similar thing in another post a few minutes ago and am now off to report it.

  14. #14
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    354

    Default Re: Why doesn't the errancy of the Bible mean that there's no Go

    The Bible is a group of documents written by one tribe of people in their effort to understand God, the universe, and their relationship with both. It is, to my mind, neither more nor less correct in its determinations than most other efforts. There is great wisdom in the Bible, and there is great horror.

    If God exists (and I think the point, while debatable, cannot be answered empirically) as the creator of the universe, then God is as eternal, unchanging, and all-encompassing a concept as can exist. Human understanding is temporary, always changing, and extremely limited. Therefore, any understanding we have of God is inherently flawed. God did not approve of slavery three thousand years ago and then decide slavery was bad a century and a half ago. Instead, three thousand years ago, humans thought slavery was just fine, but a century and a half ago, enough humans (in the US, at least) though slavery was bad, that its institutionalized practice came to an end.

    I believe the rules of behavior handed down in the Bible and other holy scriptures were agreed upon primarily to allow groups of people to live together and interact with as little conflict as possible. Clearly, they failed more than a little. I also believe that the rules handed down allowed people to find some purpose in their existence beyond eating, sleeping, and making more humans. In this, they succeeded quite well.

    I'd like to say that I believe we're getting a little closer to aligning our behavior with whatever universal good God may intend, but then I remember that I'm human, and as such, my understanding is inherently flawed. What if this emphasis on the individual is actually the opposite of what we should aspire to? What if we were actually in harmony with God when we were chewing on raw meat, sleeping in trees, and occasionally being eaten by leopards?

    If the human race were to go extinct tomorrow, God - if God exists - would still exist, and God's nature would not be one iota changed. Whether the Bible says one thing or another about God is purely irrelevant, except in that it gives us the help we need.
    The panther is like the leopard, except it hasn't been peppered.
    If you see a panther crouch, prepare to say "ouch!".
    Better yet, if called by a panther, don't anther.
    - Ogden Nash

  15. #15
    Indifferent to bacon Julie's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,636

    Default Re: Why doesn't the errancy of the Bible mean that there's no Go

    Quote Originally posted by BJMoose
    Quote Originally posted by Rube E. Tewesday
    * * *
    But let me ask, Why? This is God we're talking about. Why would he choose to communicate through a messed up, hobbled together collection of stories. Aren't the fundamentalists right when they say that when you've rejected inerrancy, you've rejected God? Why isn't it that simple?
    Interesting that Ehrman has done a revised edition of Bruce Metzger's The Text of the New Testament[sup:3boyxw34]1[/sup:3boyxw34]. That dovetails nicely with my response: why would God go through all the trouble of creating a perfect Bible and then put its transmission in the hands of imperfect copyists So whether the original was inerrant or not, the copies we have now all have demonstrable errors in them, and it is often impossible to reconstruct the original.

    I picture Saint John scribbling out his inerrant Apocalypse while the guy in the next room is making an errant copy of one of Paul's epistles.

    And of course, even if we grant an inerrant Scripture, the formulation given in the OP utterly ignores the problem of hermeneutics (a term that I suspect few True Believers are familiar with). Whose interpretation is correct? Yours? Mine? Joseph Smith's?
    Can't God fix these problems before they occur? He's GOD.

    We're left with a handful of options:

    1. He could but he doesn't wanna.
    2. He can't because he has limits.
    3. He can't because there's no God.

  16. #16
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    354

    Default Re: Why doesn't the errancy of the Bible mean that there's no God

    Or:

    4. God won't, because that would skew the game. (An offshoot of Reason #1, but it doesn't deny God the ability to sympathize.)
    The panther is like the leopard, except it hasn't been peppered.
    If you see a panther crouch, prepare to say "ouch!".
    Better yet, if called by a panther, don't anther.
    - Ogden Nash

  17. #17
    Oliphaunt Rube E. Tewesday's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    7,743

    Default Re: Why doesn't the errancy of the Bible mean that there's no God

    Quote Originally posted by phouka
    Or:

    4. God won't, because that would skew the game. (An offshoot of Reason #1, but it doesn't deny God the ability to sympathize.)

    "The game?'

    The Creator of the Universe doesn't want to get his message across properly because he's playing a cosmic game of telephone?

  18. #18
    Member
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    On Veronica Lake
    Posts
    86

    Default Re: Why doesn't the errancy of the Bible mean that there's no God

    Which suggests an Option 5: God is a bit of an asshole.

    'Scuse me whilst I hoist this lightning rod.

  19. #19
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    354

    Default Re: Why doesn't the errancy of the Bible mean that there's no God

    Quote Originally posted by Rube E. Tewesday
    Quote Originally posted by phouka
    Or:

    4. God won't, because that would skew the game. (An offshoot of Reason #1, but it doesn't deny God the ability to sympathize.)

    "The game?'

    The Creator of the Universe doesn't want to get his message across properly because he's playing a cosmic game of telephone?
    That's a metaphor, and a poor choice of words on my part.

    This isn't a game. It's far more important than that. It does, however, come with its own set of rules - the laws that govern the universe. Physics, biology, chemistry, evolution, neuroanatomy, and so forth. We are as subject to these rules as every other thing in the universe.

    I do believe we have everything we need to make our world one of justice, compassion, and love. Not individually, perhaps, but certainly as a community. That's my current existential philosophy.

    So, if God interferes at random times, voiding the laws of the universe for our individual, temporary benefit, we lose out on a much larger scale. We lose free will. We lose the ability to determine our own fate. We lose the ability to achieve our own potential.
    The panther is like the leopard, except it hasn't been peppered.
    If you see a panther crouch, prepare to say "ouch!".
    Better yet, if called by a panther, don't anther.
    - Ogden Nash

  20. #20
    Indifferent to bacon Julie's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,636

    Default Re: Why doesn't the errancy of the Bible mean that there's no God

    Quote Originally posted by phouka
    We lose free will.
    I will never understand the idea that if God changes X we lose free will. If that's true, then we don't have free will to start with since God set up the system. Either we have it no matter what tweaks are made, or we don't have it.

  21. #21
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    354

    Default Re: Why doesn't the errancy of the Bible mean that there's no God

    A man breaks into my house to steal my stuff. I pray to God "save me from this man!"

    Any action God might take interferes - not with my free will - with the free will of the housebreaker or with the free will of some other agent, like the neighbor, who for some reason, felt compelled to load up her shotgun and check on me, even though she hasn't spoken to me since that fiasco with the skunk.

    And if God chose to interfere - either dropping an anvil on the housebreaker's head or telling his soul that he is a very, very bad boy and should not choose a life of crime - then he has not only negated one individual's free will but also deprived all of us of experiencing the consequences of our actions.

    More later. Believe it or not, I'm going to church. But it's Unitarian-Universalist, so it doesn't count.
    The panther is like the leopard, except it hasn't been peppered.
    If you see a panther crouch, prepare to say "ouch!".
    Better yet, if called by a panther, don't anther.
    - Ogden Nash

  22. #22
    Indifferent to bacon Julie's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,636

    Default Re: Why doesn't the errancy of the Bible mean that there's no God

    Quote Originally posted by phouka
    A man breaks into my house to steal my stuff. I pray to God "save me from this man!"

    Any action God might take interferes - not with my free will - with the free will of the housebreaker or with the free will of some other agent, like the neighbor, who for some reason, felt compelled to load up her shotgun and check on me, even though she hasn't spoken to me since that fiasco with the skunk.

    And if God chose to interfere - either dropping an anvil on the housebreaker's head or telling his soul that he is a very, very bad boy and should not choose a life of crime - then he has not only negated one individual's free will but also deprived all of us of experiencing the consequences of our actions.
    How is dropping an anvil on the housebreaker's head negating anyone's free will? And why should you suffer the consequences of someone else's actions by God's design? What does someone else's free will have to do with you?

  23. #23
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    354

    Default Re: Why doesn't the errancy of the Bible mean that there's no God

    Quote Originally posted by Julie
    How is dropping an anvil on the housebreaker's head negating anyone's free will?
    A person decides to commit an action. Breaking all known laws of the universe, an anvil materializes over that person's head and falls on it. That person's action has been nullified by God. Not by the laws of the universe. Not by me. And that person's ability to choose good or evil - their fundamental capacity for free will - is now irrelevant.

    Now, if every time one person walks into another person's home, an anvil were to materialize in the air above that person's head and fall, then it would be a testable, repeatable, foreseeable, predictable law of the universe, and we would all bring our anvil umbrellas any time we were invited over. We would all know what was coming and could make our decisions based on that. No one's free will is interfered with.

    Quote Originally posted by Julie
    Why should you suffer the consequences of someone else's actions by God's design?
    Well, to my mind (and all this is IMHO), I suffer the consequences of someone else's actions because they suffer the consequences of my actions. We are all connected. It's not necessarily a direct connection, but the connection is there. I declined to volunteer at a soup kitchen. Low on workforce, they weren't able to feed as many and had to turn several people away. One of those people decides the only way he's going to get food is to break into a house and steal it. Somewhere, an anvil salesman curses because his stock has taken yet another hit.

    This is a gross simplification, and I don't go around wondering what I did that caused some random person to commit a crime. I do, however, recognize that my decisions and actions have an effect on the people around me. When I nod and smile and say good morning to the young woman behind the counter, when I leave an empty mocha cup on the table, and when I post a message on this message board.

    Quote Originally posted by Julie
    What does someone else's free will have to do with you?
    Everything. If I do not respect others' right to free will (by, for instance, asking God to stop them doing something), then I can no longer claim the right to my own free will. At least, not without being a hypocrite.

    If I want to change someone else's action, then it's up to me, not God. I can work those hours at the soup kitchen, set up an anvil booby-trap, vote to pay more taxes for community services, invite a police officer to stay the night, adopt a fierce guard dog, leave food out on the porch, or any number of other things that would influence him.

    I just can't expect God to do it for me. At least, I can't do it without understanding that God's going to interfere in my life the next time I do something someone else doesn't like. After all, why would God favor me out of six billion other people? It's possible, but highly unlikely that I, out of all the humans who have ever lived, have figured out just how to appeal to God so that God decides canceling the laws of the universe in order to drop an anvil on another person's head is a good idea.

    Does that help?
    The panther is like the leopard, except it hasn't been peppered.
    If you see a panther crouch, prepare to say "ouch!".
    Better yet, if called by a panther, don't anther.
    - Ogden Nash

  24. #24
    Indifferent to bacon Julie's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,636

    Default Re: Why doesn't the errancy of the Bible mean that there's no God

    Quote Originally posted by phouka
    Quote Originally posted by Julie
    How is dropping an anvil on the housebreaker's head negating anyone's free will?
    A person decides to commit an action. Breaking all known laws of the universe, an anvil materializes over that person's head and falls on it. That person's action has been nullified by God. Not by the laws of the universe. Not by me. And that person's ability to choose good or evil - their fundamental capacity for free will - is now irrelevant.

    Now, if every time one person walks into another person's home, an anvil were to materialize in the air above that person's head and fall, then it would be a testable, repeatable, foreseeable, predictable law of the universe, and we would all bring our anvil umbrellas any time we were invited over. We would all know what was coming and could make our decisions based on that. No one's free will is interfered with.
    So, if that person is struck by lightning, they have no free will? If they are attacked by wildebeests or caught in a tornado or any number of freakish occurrences, their free will has been taken away?


    Quote Originally posted by phouka
    Well, to my mind (and all this is IMHO), I suffer the consequences of someone else's actions because they suffer the consequences of my actions. We are all connected. It's not necessarily a direct connection, but the connection is there. I declined to volunteer at a soup kitchen. Low on workforce, they weren't able to feed as many and had to turn several people away. One of those people decides the only way he's going to get food is to break into a house and steal it. Somewhere, an anvil salesman curses because his stock has taken yet another hit.
    It seems that some people get to cause far greater consequences than others.


    Quote Originally posted by phouka
    This is a gross simplification, and I don't go around wondering what I did that caused some random person to commit a crime. I do, however, recognize that my decisions and actions have an effect on the people around me. When I nod and smile and say good morning to the young woman behind the counter, when I leave an empty mocha cup on the table, and when I post a message on this message board.
    Sure, it all has effects, but that has nothing to do with free will. Does a tree have free will? It can fall over and take out my car.



    Quote Originally posted by phouka
    Quote Originally posted by Julie
    What does someone else's free will have to do with you?
    Everything. If I do not respect others' right to free will (by, for instance, asking God to stop them doing something), then I can no longer claim the right to my own free will. At least, not without being a hypocrite.
    I can't fly. Does that violate my free will?


    Quote Originally posted by phouka
    If I want to change someone else's action, then it's up to me, not God. I can work those hours at the soup kitchen, set up an anvil booby-trap, vote to pay more taxes for community services, invite a police officer to stay the night, adopt a fierce guard dog, leave food out on the porch, or any number of other things that would influence him.

    I just can't expect God to do it for me. At least, I can't do it without understanding that God's going to interfere in my life the next time I do something someone else doesn't like. After all, why would God favor me out of six billion other people? It's possible, but highly unlikely that I, out of all the humans who have ever lived, have figured out just how to appeal to God so that God decides canceling the laws of the universe in order to drop an anvil on another person's head is a good idea.

    Does that help?
    No, it really doesn't. God set up the scenario, so you only have the set of choices he allows. You're trying to say that the horribleness of some choices people make is somehow inherent to the system, while I'm saying that if it's inherent to the system it's because God chose it to be that way. So, saying he can't fix it now just creates its own set of paradoxes.

  25. #25
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    354

    Default Re: Why doesn't the errancy of the Bible mean that there's no God

    Just so we're clear, this is all in good fun, right? I'm not upsetting you by emptying out my brain on this thread, right? And I really appreciate the opportunity to test my thoughts and sharpen my arguments.

    Quote Originally posted by Julie
    So, if that person is struck by lightning, they have no free will? If they are attacked by wildebeests or caught in a tornado or any number of freakish occurrences, their free will has been taken away?
    We are all subject to the laws of the universe. While there are certain aspects about lightning that appear random, there are also certain things we've learned to predict. For instance, it's a really bad idea to stand on a bare hill in a thunderstorm with a copper gold club held aloft in your hand.

    So, the laws of the universe (physics, chemistry, and biology) overrule free will.

    Quote Originally posted by Julie
    It seems that some people get to cause far greater consequences than others.
    Well, you and I are very unlikely to break into someone's house, or do anything else which has that great a negative consequence for someone else. However, someone on this very board recently messaged me, offering to help with my cat's vet expenses. So, every time I look at my cat and start worrying about vet bills, I remember that offer, and the worry goes *poof*. Perhaps it's not as much a positive as a home robbery is a negative, but an accumulation of those acts means the person responsible has had a very large effect on the people around them.

    Quote Originally posted by Julie
    Sure, it all has effects, but that has nothing to do with free will. Does a tree have free will? It can fall over and take out my car.
    I'm going to go out on a limb and say no. Trees don't possess free will. They lack a nervous center, a brain, or any other agency which might provide them with self-awareness and the ability to make decisions. I do, however, count them as part of the universe and subject to the laws which govern it.

    We choose our actions, and through that decision, we choose our consequences. Those of us who choose to park underneath a cottonwood (a species with notoriously weak wood) showing signs of disease as a wind storm is arriving . . . well, they probably won't be too surprised to find a limb has fallen on their car. Upset, yes. Surprised, not so much.




    Quote Originally posted by Julie
    I can't fly. Does that violate my free will?
    Optional snarky answer: Sure you can! You just have to be willing to put up with the internal cavity search by the TSA.

    Real answer: You're right, you can't fly. At least not unaided. Your musculature, the structure of your bones, and the gravitational acceleration of our favorite planet over rule your desire. Laws of the universe trump free will. However, you can do a huge amount of research and testing into the subjects which would allow you to design an aided flight system. By doing so, you can bring the laws of the universe to your aid.


    Quote Originally posted by phouka
    Does that help?
    Quote Originally posted by Julie
    No, it really doesn't. God set up the scenario, so you only have the set of choices he allows. You're trying to say that the horribleness of some choices people make is somehow inherent to the system, while I'm saying that if it's inherent to the system it's because God chose it to be that way. So, saying he can't fix it now just creates its own set of paradoxes.
    Well, I'm not so much saying God can't fix it as I'm saying that God chooses not to fix it because God gave us everything we require to fix it ourselves. (And this is assuming that God exists, which is still a pretty big question in my mind.)

    I'm saying that the sooner people stop asking God to fix things and get around to fixing it themselves, the better off we'll all be.

    I have this whole tangled philosophy in my head that takes into account neuroanatomy, the structure of society, the need for empathy, the recurring laws of different religions, dandelion patches, and Cesar Millan's approach to rehabilitating dogs/training people.

    History has shown us that whenever a group of people put their minds to something, for good or for ill, they can accomplish an amazing amount. We made it to the moon in under ten years. We wiped out smallpox. We exterminated millions of people because we didn't like one of their personal traits. We enslaved hundreds of millions of our fellow humans and treated them like chattel because of the color of their skin.

    We have, at several times in the past, made Hell on earth. I think we have the ability to build Heaven on earth as well.
    The panther is like the leopard, except it hasn't been peppered.
    If you see a panther crouch, prepare to say "ouch!".
    Better yet, if called by a panther, don't anther.
    - Ogden Nash

  26. #26
    Indifferent to bacon Julie's avatar
    Registered
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    1,636

    Default Re: Why doesn't the errancy of the Bible mean that there's no God

    Quote Originally posted by phouka
    Just so we're clear, this is all in good fun, right? I'm not upsetting you by emptying out my brain on this thread, right? And I really appreciate the opportunity to test my thoughts and sharpen my arguments.
    No worries. I'm just argumentative by nature (and nurture. My family is all filled with annoying people like me!)



    Quote Originally posted by phouka
    Well, you and I are very unlikely to break into someone's house, or do anything else which has that great a negative consequence for someone else. However, someone on this very board recently messaged me, offering to help with my cat's vet expenses. So, every time I look at my cat and start worrying about vet bills, I remember that offer, and the worry goes *poof*. Perhaps it's not as much a positive as a home robbery is a negative, but an accumulation of those acts means the person responsible has had a very large effect on the people around them.
    True.

    I begin to think we should take the free will argument and hie to a different thread, though I'm not sure how long I want to pursue it. Thoughts?

  27. #27
    Stegodon
    Registered
    Mar 2009
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    354

    Default Re: Why doesn't the errancy of the Bible mean that there's no God

    Sounds good to me!
    The panther is like the leopard, except it hasn't been peppered.
    If you see a panther crouch, prepare to say "ouch!".
    Better yet, if called by a panther, don't anther.
    - Ogden Nash

+ Reply to thread

Posting rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts