Equipoise, Faith & the Purpose of Apologetics

quote:

---

It's the intellect, not equipoise, which isn't fully trustworthy

---

But what other approach could be any better ? And how could you know that it was better ?

quote:

---

Yes an unbiased treatment of the evidence would be a right use of intellect, and I was offering my own opinion that that unbiased treatment of the evidence should lead to a recognition of the veracity of the Biblical reports.

---

In that case your opinion is wrong. Much of the Bible is unverifiable. As you know other parts have to be defended with ad hoc ideas about how things might have happened. Indeed this is what many inerrantist apologetics rely on. If you were correct then this would not be the case - why would apologists rely on dubious excuses to avoid admitting that the Bible is incorrect, if it is clearly true ?

I simply believed in the honesty of the people writing the report myself and so believed their report which took me to the realities of things unseen. I would say that judging a person's honesty is an intellectual function, wouldn't you? Or what is it if not that? And I believe my judgment led me right. I think this is the better approach myself, but some have been convinced by apologetics too. And others don't find the reporters to be honest and sincere or the apologetics convincing, so what we are talking about is a difference between people's understanding and judgment. There isn't any way we are going to be able to put a QED to these things. I say yours is wrong. Now where are we? I simply don't see it this way. I think the Bible is self-verifying. I don't get the ad hoc reference, but certainly there are better and worse apologetics. I don't see dubious excuses, etc etc etc. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I simply believed in the honesty of the people writing the report myself and so believed their report which took me to the realities of things unseen. I would say that judging a person's honesty is an intellectual function, wouldn't you?

---

It certainly could be. But I asked what would be better than an intellectual approach. You ahve just offered one intellectual approach. And for much of the Bible your approach won't work. No matter how honest the author they are limited by their own knowledge and an honest author can still write something that is completely false. So why should we, for instance, make up numerous ad hoc excuses to deal with problems with Noah's Flood when it appears to be a myth in the first place ?

quote:

---

I say yours is wrong. Now where are we?

---

In the position of supporting our opinions. I provided support - you haven't.And there are plenty of examples of ad hoc excuses. The whole invention of "kinds" to try to fit all the animals in Noah's Ark is a good one. And the attempts to deal with the fact that that only exacerbates the problem of the genetic bottlenecks we DON'T see is an even clearer example.

quote:

---

I think the Bible is self-verifying

---

Is that an opinion or something you can show to be true ? How does the Bible verify itelf ?

I've been in your shoes and I've been a Christian for over 40 years. My revelation came while studying covenants.My biggest problem with apologetics is that they don't address the important questions with enough real and reasonable evidence. They fell short from my perspective.The oddities concerning Gen 1 and 2 are not important. I've spent several years researching the reality behind the Bible and the religion. So typos and differences don't really bother me.Sounds like you are already in a spiritual crisis so I don't think it can get any worse for you unless you lose your spirituality altogether. Maturing in our spirituality, IMO, is like a child maturing away from their parents. First we think our parents are always right and as we get older and learn more we find that they aren't always right. The same with religion. We feel our religion is always right and as we mature and learn, we find that our religion or those who present our religion aren't necessarily always right.Don't confuse the religion, the people, and God.What is the most important issue to you that you felt apologetics didn't address well?I apologize if you have mentioned it already and I've missed it. If you have you can refer me back to the post if you wish.BTW, stop pulling your hair out! Just take the time to learn and explore all the avenues. Don't try to solve it all at once.I made it through one small step at a time. All depends on what you're looking for.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Simply an accurate versus a faulty intellectual approach I suppose I'm claiming. Too careful to do that. Too much fear of God. Much of the Bible is simply reports on events, doesn't require interpretation or anything more than simple honesty. It doesn't appear to be a myth in the first place. Again that's my judgment against yours. You have a funny idea of support. Kinds isn't invented, it's clearly shown to have been the case in the Bible. We try to imagine the hows of the situation, that's all. Well, science isn't perfect. What you see now you may well be rethinking in a few years. Just my personal judgment. Which I share with many others. It does help verify a person's judgment when you find so many who see it so much the same way. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It seems to me that focussing on one particular piece of the puzzle while ignoring the others is surely less reliable than looking at all the available evidence. So I don't see that you are offering anything better.As to the supposed fear of God, it can't make them any more reliable if they're honest in the first place. But it could make them less reliable, causing them to slant their works. And much of the Bible is not direct reports - none of the Pentateuch is, for instance.And if providing evidence isn't supporting a claim I don't know what is.And yes, "kinds" are made up. They aren't in the Bible. There's nothing in the Bible, for instance, that indicates that the "kinds" in the Noah story are these unfamiliar things which hyper-evolved into modern species in a matter of centuries. And "thinkiong how thigns might have been" means making up any scenario that fits into your beliefs regardless of evidence and plausibility.I would add that it cannot "just" be your opinion that the Bible is "self verifying" - if your opinion is correct there must be some way in which it verifies itself. Without a firm basis for your opinion it cannot be true.One final comment hanging out with people who share your biases will naturally tend to reinforce them. It won't make them any more correct.

It depends on what the purpose of apologetics is. If the purpose of apologetics is to satisfactorily demonstrate that particular material claims of the Bible are true, for instance that Paul wrote the book of Galatians, then we don't have a problem. But isn't that far too narrow a purpose? Isn't the ultimate purpose of apologetics to move the person examining it to faith? If so, then yes. That's what I'm afraid of. Not really. It would be more like using a mathematical formula to prove that mathematics is unreliable. In that case, wouldn't I find myself believing in something I could see (by which I imagine Hebrews to mean "examine" whether it be by actual sight or some other method)? We're coming to the place where we have to define faith... ...because I find myself being asked to accept something more than that Paul lived, and that he wrote Galatians, and that in it he claimed the risen Christ had spoken to him, and that he convinced others of this, and Look! Here's the actual foundation of a church building where people who beleived his testimony worsipped not many years later. All very well. All things I can see and examine. But between all this and faith is a great divide that apologetics does not seem to be able to cross.Can we use the tools to take us to a place where their very excellence and reliability cause us to abandon using them? Where we are certain of that which we cannot see...cannot examine? Where we are sure, not of what we've found, but of what we hope for? Bingo.

I apologize for my difficulties in communicating my line of reasoning. It seems as though all my efforts to spell it out step by step keep breaking down. To tell you the truth, I can't decide if it's because my ideas on this are too fuzzy, or if it's because I'm trying to point to a serious disconnect and keep tripping over it. You've put your finger on the very reason I wanted to keep the term equipoise in this topic title. As an online friend once pointed out to me, skepticism is biased, but it is an even handed bias that counterbalances the claim it is examining. Also, skepticism is best practiced in community, so we can keep prodding and poking and counterbalancing one another. That seems suspiciously like what I'm trying to say. Apologetics can't get you to faith. You either approach your apologetic with faith, in which case it will feel quite adequate; or you approach it with equipoise and whatever other tools of skeptical inquiry you have at hand, and find it leads to a dead end.Edited by GlassSoul, : spelling corrections

But people have been convinced of the truth of the gospel through apologetics, that is, intellectually, before they have faith.

Paul, it's the oddest thing, from a fundy's point of view anyway, but we give all kinds of evidence and arguments and most here just find fault with it. You think it's a matter of evidence but it really isn't in the end, or maybe it's a matter of judgment of the evidence. We think we have evidence galore.I've written long posts about what convinces me of the truth of the Bible, only to be astonished at the things people can think of to debunk it, things they apparently think are rational and even open and shut evidence against it, but I just think it sounds like some kind of intellectual acrobatics in the service of dismissing the evidence. This is just a vague impression at the moment. Seems like it happens all the time here but I don't remember specific arguments. There's nothing we can say back. It's a different way of looking at the evidence.Perhaps it's mainly that we trust the writers of the Bible and you don't. You think you have good reason to question them and you will put up reason after reason. It only convinces you and others who agree with you. It doesn't convince believers. Likewise we put up reason after reason why we find the Bible believable, how it all holds together through 1500 years of different writers and cultural conditions, how it's marvelously internally consistent -- this is all self-verification -- but all you see is what you call inconsistencies and contradictions. You think we're stupidly ignoring them. We think you're blind to the obvious. Where does evidence and support really come into this? As you say, people who share your biases will tend to reinforce them. It won't make them any more correct. Are you reading the evidence correctly? You think so.The kinds are in Genesis 1, where God creates the creatures "after their kind." The rest is speculation about how they may have evolved to the present time, through the Flood and all, trying to be consistent with what is known, but it's not set in concrete. The fact that God made creatures "after their kind" IS set in concrete. Perhaps you have some other way of reading that passage. Perhaps you have others who agree with you. NOnt of that makes you correct.The Fear of God by definition means extra concern NOT to slant the truth.

quote:

---

Paul, it's the oddest thing, from a fundy's point of view anyway, but we give all kinds of evidence and arguments and most here just find fault with it. You think it's a matter of evidence but it really isn't in the end, or maybe it's a matter of judgment of the evidence. We think we have evidence galore.

---

OK, you think that but you're wrong. I've seen a lot of apologetics. I've seen people argue that instructions for a Roman census in Egypt, stating that people should register at their homes is evidence that a Roman census in Judaea would have people register away from their homes as Luke says Joseph did.I've had people insist that the censuses of Augustus mentioned in the Res Gestae are the census found in Luke. But it doesn't take much investigation to find that they refer to counts of Roman citizens. They wouldn't apply to non-citizens who didn't even live in the Empire itself.I've already mentioned the whole business of "kinds" - and the fact that the creationist idea of "kinds" is their invention and not to be found in the Bible. And you turn aroud and state that it is in the Bible - but never offer any support. Well where's the evidence ? If it is in the Bible you should be able to find it. What you mean is that the word "kind" is used in the Bible - but that is not the real issue. (As we see below).

quote:

---

I've written long posts about what convinces me of the truth of the Bible, only to be astonished at the things people can think of to
debunk it, things they apparently think are rational and even open and shut evidence against it, but I just think it sounds like some kind of intellectual acrobatics in the service of dismissing the evidence. This is just a vague impression at the moment. Seems like it happens all the time here but I don't remember specific arguments. There's nothing we can say back. It's a different way of looking at the evidence.

---

And if you can't find specific examples we're really left with just your opinion. Like your opinion that the Bible is "self verifying" - an opinion which does not seem to have any sound basis.I won't say that all arguments against the Bible are good, but the overall pattern is quite clear. There are good arguments against Biblical inerrancy and none for it.

quote:

---

Perhaps it's mainly that we trust the writers of the Bible and you don't. You think you have good reason to question them and you will put up reason after reason.

---

Which is an expression of bias on your part. You would't trust other ancient authors in the same way. I have good reason to suspect that you would be more strongly skeptical of anything that contradicted your beliefs than I would.

quote:

---

Likewise we put up reason after reason why we find the Bible believable, how it all holds together through 1500 years of different writers and cultural conditions, how it's marvelously internally consistent -- this is all self-verification -- but all you see is what you call inconsistencies and contradictions.

---

Well it isn't that consistent. That's a fact. And even if it was that wouldn't verify it. We would need to consider the whole picture.To take just one example why should we try to mash Luke and Matthew's Nativity stories together ? There are some obvious discrepencies - and the historical data places the census referred to by Luke at least 9 years after the death of Herod the Great, while Matthew clearly places Jesus' birth in the reign of that monarch. We have no reason to believe that either author was a witness to their story and we don't even know their sources. So why try to invent an improbable census to try to reconcile the two stories ? Why can't we just accept that the best explanation is that oen of them is wrong on this point ?Come to that we have the situation where the genealogy in Luke is claimed to be a genealogy of Mary for no reaon other than the fact that it clashes with the genealogy offered by Matthew. Why assume that Luke happened to write Mary's genealogy as if it were her husbands ? I've asked if anyone else in the Greek, Jewish or Roman world ever wrote the wife's genealogy as if it were the husbands and got no answer. This is a common apologetic, but it seems to be nothing more than a deliberate twisting of Luke's words.

quote:

---

The kinds are in Genesis 1, where God creates the creatures "after their kind."

---

i.e. the word translated "kind" is in Geneiss. Well I knew that. I wasn't talking about the word, I was talking about the idea of "kinds" as Creationists use it to reduce the number of animals on the Ark.

quote:

---

The rest is speculation about how they may have evolved to the present time, through the Flood and all, trying to be consistent with what is known, but it's not set in concrete.

---

i.e. Creationists made it up, just as I saidSo why did you say that it was in the Bible ?I mean this is part of the problem. People who think like you jump for the first defence they can think of without critically examining it. So when I say that creationists made up their idea of "kind" you say "it's in the Bible" even though on reflection you know that is not the case. So I wonder, how many of the other arguments you thought were "good" are ones you simply don't critically examine. Somethign for you to consider, there.h

So, if you understand the dilemma.. I don't see what you're asking, or what you're confused about. Or.. perhaps you're not and you're just trying to make the point that there is a dilemma.Yes, believing in Christianity takes faith. A strong belief in Christianity cannot be obtained through scientific methods alone. Or, at least, I am unaware of any such path. If this is understood, I don't see anything intellectually wrong or dishonest about choosing either side.There is nothing inherently wrong with having faith.. it just isn't scientific. But, well, it's not supposed to be.
There is also nothing inherently wrong with remaining strictly scientific.. it just dosen't include aspects of faith. But, again, it's not meant to.It is also certainly possible to have both, and use both. They really don't conflict with each other as much as has been popularized. In fact, I've personally never had any conflict of them at all in my life. Many people tend to force a percieved overlap of the two where none really exists. This allows them to choose one over the other and "strengthen" their own inner convictions. Convictions that I would personally call misguided.

That's one type of faith anyway. I prefer faith as a trust in something or someone etc. There has to be some basis for trust. God in the OT gave reasons for trusting him.Of course I feel there is a difference between finding evidence for what is written in the Bible and finding evidence for what religions claim the Bible says.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Well written. Indeed, you are quite correct when you state: This probably represents the position of a majority of believers. Quite a few of those that post on this forum, for example, would have little to argue with in your post - believer or non-believer. Unfortunately, there is a vocal and growing minority, at least in the US (and possibly Canada), which adamantly disagrees. And therein lies the rub - this forum (and others) exist solely because this minority seeks to force the tenets of their "faith" to be taught as "fact".Atheists such as myself have absolutely no problem with believers who accept the non-overlapping nature of faith and methodological naturalism as you outlined. Only when when "faith" seeks to replace "science" as an approximate explanation of the natural world do we have some heartburn with it.

And rightly so, which is why I like to read these forums. Some, a minority it seems, appear genuinely confused as to where each category belongs. I like reading these posts as they help me sort through and question my own thoughts on the matter. Others tend to take a very headstrong and.. impenetrable, even.. approach at simply denying that one side or the other is remotely incorrect.I would also promote the reverse as well, although it seems to be extremely rare. I think that when "science" attempts to displace "faith", where evidence is clearly lacking, it should also be repremanded. However, the vast majority of arguements taking this position I find are only misunderstanding "science". They tend to claim that science is attempting to position itself in a way that it actually is not.I think that this reversal is so rare and easily corrected because Science is so straight-forwardly defined. Faith and religion, on the other hand, don't tend to promote their own limits. In fact, Faith is sometimes even promoted as "limitless". Hence I can understand where most of these arguments come from. Having a limitless strength to oneself can be a very attractive quality to people. And to be confronted that it is not actually so can be devastating to certain personal views which are built on the concept. So it is no wonder that such Faith-views can be so vehemently defended. Even in the face of sheer blatant contradictions. Personally, I pity such stream-lined thought processes. It is a shame, for they willingly limit their own ability to learn while believing themselves to exist within a limitless reality.