Why read the Bible literally: take two

This is a reply to Message 303 from Faith. I agree, and if you look at WikiPedia's list for how to formulate a proper argument from authority you'll see it is just a much more detailed version of my own list. Here's Wiki's list, to save you a mouse click:

1. The authority must have competence in an area, not just glamour, prestige, rank or popularity.
2. The judgement must be within the authority's field of competence.
3. The authority must be interpreted correctly.
4. Direct evidence must be available, at least in principle.
5. The expert should be reasonably unbiased (not unduly influenced by other factors, such as money, political considerations, or religious beliefs).
6. The judgement must be representative of expert opinions on the issue (as opposed to an unrepresentative sample).
7. A technique is needed to adjudicate disagreements among equally qualified authorities.
8. The argument must be valid in its own right i.e. without needing to appeal to authority at all - except of course to its own authority as entirely valid. (This last point ought to dissuade any who might consider an argument legitimate from authority alone - even if that argument is about the legitimacy of itself as an argument from authority. And, has serious implications for the relevancy of the argument from authority portion - even if valid in its own right - of a greater argument in the first place.)

An intelligent argument for accepting Jesus's authority on the matter of the serpent should address these questions. You can't skip past consideration of these questions to declare that Jesus is an authority on everything, because to do so is to make it an assumption which turns it into the fallacy of argument from authority.But it is better to never argue from authority, but rather to move past the authorities to consider the same evidence that they did.You've got a talking serpent, a global flood, a wife of salt and a man living in a fish for three days, and I'm asking you by what intellectual exercise you conclude that such fairy tale events really happened. So far you've offered the fallacy of argument from authority and that the Bible is a self-consistent whole, as well as arguments from faith. I haven't yet seen anything that resembles a rational analysis.An intellectual argument can still have a foundation of faith. I think you're mistaken to believe that faith must have objective support.--Percy

There is no intent to ridicule, but I *did* choose the term "fairy tale" for a reason. These events are precisely like those from fairy tales, especially the talking serpent. The only difference is that the stories are not in Grimm's Fairy Tales but in the Bible where they've been inextricably interwoven into Christian theology. Faith claimed that a literal interpretation was an intelligent and rational choice, and I used the term "fairy tale" to emphasize the challenge she faced in explaining that intellectual process.--Percy

Fred Williams calls evolution a fairy tale all the time, though he hasn't been here recently. Check out his website: The Evolution Fairytale I think you have to keep the context in mind. I would never call someone's religious beliefs fairy tales. I've said to Faith several times that beliefs accepted on faith do not require objective real-world support. But this only upsets Faith (as does almost everything else), and she persists in claiming that she can provide a rational argument for believing the stories really happened. At that point she has stepped into the real world where, as far as anyone can tell, talking animals appear only in cartoons.--Percy

I agree with you, but not at the expense of meaning. I was trying to emphasize to Faith something she seems to be having trouble remembering, namely that she's claiming she can advance objective arguments not based upon faith or belief for interpreting the Bible literally. The more times she provides answers along the lines of (paraphrasing), "You just believe and then you know," or "Jesus believed it, that's sufficient evidence," the more I'm forced to explore the vocabulary to clarify things for her.You haven't been here that long, so you're unaware that Faith has a very extensive history of making exaggerated claims of objective support for what she believes. Don't take my word for it, ask anyone. But how does this bear on the question addressed to Faith? She says that there's an rational argument for taking the Bible literally. To me this would be an argument that does not first require one to believe, one that is independent of Christianity, one that would be as persuasive to Hindus and atheists as Christians. I think Faith agrees with this, because when I pointed out her faith based arguments, she then emphasized her authority arguments. I think the argument that God can do anything is a religious, faith-based argument, and it doesn't seem the type of argument Faith should be seeking in her search for objective support for literal interpretations of the Bible.--Percy

Well, it's work, and you can't reap the rewards of the work if you don't do the work.Until you support your authorities, you're just using the fallacy of argument from authority. I know you'd like your authorities accepted without question, but that isn't how issues get settled. In fact, quality discussions avoid the argument from authority altogether, because for every authority one side offers the other side can usually offer one, too. Argument from authority types of discussions usually go nowhere.If you don't want to follow through on supporting your argument from authority, please understand that I don't want you to, either. I want you to avoid the argument from authority altogether to instead discuss the relevant criteria and evidence. It doesn't help us much to know that Jonathan Edwards accepted a literal talking serpent. We need to know how he arrived at that conclusion. As I explained, ridicule is not the object. To one who does not accept the Bible as literally true, Abraham's journey into Egypt might be described as myth. There is little in the account that isn't possible in the real world, and maybe it even did happen. But talking animals and global floods and wives turning to salt and men living inside fish are myths of a different character, and I emphasized that by using the term "fairy tale," not because it's necessarily the best term, but because you didn't seem to recognize the magnitude of the task you set yourself. You still don't. You still seem to think that non-fundamentalists should accept fundamentalist beliefs just as strongly as you do. There *are* other belief systems out there, you know. You need arguments grounded in objectivty, not Christian theology. You need arguments that are true for everyone, not just fundamentalists. Have you considered the possibility that it might have more to do with the strength of your arguments? I know you think you're offering objective evidence, but it's all Christian theology, e.g., this that you thought so important you added it by edit: Offering Christian authorities in support of Christian beliefs cannot be termed objective by any stretch of the imagination. You need an argument that is as persuasive to Hindus and atheists as it is to Christians. Any argument that requires Christian belief to be convincing is not objective. My suggestion is to move past the problematic authorities approach and instead start offering objective arguments. Explain to us logically and rationally without any reference to Christian theology and belief why the Bible should be interpreted literally.--Percy

No, Faith, it isn't spin. You made a claim and were unable to support it, and now you're withdrawing while taking your parting shots. If you prefer not to continue the discussion that's fine. Making an insupportable claim and then abandoning the field while badmouthing your opponents is your pattern, your modus operandi, the characteristic quality that distinguishes you. If you're going to pray, pray for the strength to stop blaming others every time you fail to prove that your religious beliefs have objective support.I wasn't originally too interested in this thread because, residing as it did in the Bible Study forum, I thought the arguments for literal interpretations would be theological and scriptural and in a Christian context. But my curiousity was aroused when you broadened the scope, claiming that objective arguments could be advanced that the Bible should be literally interpreted. Your defense of this position was far from objective and completely fundamentalist Christian. You cited Biblical consistency, the requirements to Christian theology that Biblical events be real, you cited characters from the Bible and Christian apologists, and contrary to your earlier claim that you did not include faith-based justfications, your point 6 was, "Any true appreciation of the power of God ought to tell a person that none of these things is impossible. We believe them simply because God is God."You said that a literal interpretation was the intelligent choice, and I asked you to take us through the chain of logic and analysis that leads to this conclusion. I think you offered a very strong Christian justfication. You didn't offer anything like an objective one that would find acceptance in non-Christian circles. The definition of objective is that which appears the same to all regardless of background or opinion. You haven't met that standard. Nor should you have to. I'm completely flabbergasteed everytime you make the incredible claim that your religious beliefs are not only objectively true, but you can prove it.--Percy

You've done an outstanding job, in my opinion, and I'd be interested in the responses of non-literalist Christians, particular concerning your points about Christian theology requiring a literal interpretation (I still think all arguments from authority should be deprecated, but perhaps these arguments are stronger in a solely Christian context).--Percy