I went over the original posts in this thread, but not in enough detail to see if they attempted to look at the original syllogism as I now see it. So if not, let's see if this reconfiguration makes more sense.
It's not hard to see that the main claim of biblical inerrancy is circular. Here's how we start:
If God exists, then the Bible is true.
God exists.
Therefore the Bible is true.
However, there's a problem in the orignal premise. By God they have to mean the God Described in the Bible and No Other God. Affirming that Brahman exists does nothing for their argument. So what we really have once we are more explicit with our sufficient condition is:
If the God Described in the Bible and No Other God (GDBNOG) exists, then the Bible is true.
GDBNOG exists, etc.
Of course, here's where the circularity comes in:
GDBNOG exists.
How do you know?
Because the Bible says so, and the Bible is True and Accurate in All Particulars.
How do you know BTAAP?
Because GDBNOG exists.
As I see it, what fundamentalist Christians tend to do, seeing as they've got perfect circularity to work with, is to reverse sufficient and necessary conditions in the first step.
If BTAAP, then GDBNOG exists.
BTAAP.
Therefore GDBNOG exists.
What most Christians do in forming a flood argument (and in forming a lot of other apologetic arguments) is to
begin with the premise BTAAP. After all if you ask them why they believe the Flood story is true, the response is almost always that BTAAP. Thus:
If BTAAP, then the Flood Story is Literally True.
So combining our two statements, we get:
If BTAAP, then GDBANOG exists
and FSLT.
And the contrapositive:
If FSLT - not!
or GDBNOG exists - not!, then BTAAP - not!
In other words, in the contrapositive the negation of
either statement is sufficient to negate the consequent. Or, in much clearer words:
If the Flood story is not literally true, then the God of the Bible does not exist.
That seems to me to be the tree that these folks are hanging their hat on. Their whole belief in God really does depend on belief in the Flood story.
Now, bringing this all around to Dr A's original post, my thought is that since it's easy to demonstrate convincingly that that indeed the Flood as described never happened, Christians are faced with two choices. Once choice is to deny the science outright , and/or try to force science through a nuclear firestorm of misrepresentation, fuzzy thinking and denial of the obvious in order to claim that science actually supports their position. That seems to be Buz's approach. Or they can choose door number two, following ICANT's example, and just shrug away the evidence and claim a miracle. Dismissing facts by calling on miracles has become quite more and more unpopular and unsatisfying ever since we stopped living in mud huts and drowning cats to ward off the plague. Thus, the ever-entertaining spectacle of Christian Fundie's bug-eyed crazy attempts at "scientific" explanations of what science clearly denies ever happened.
Whew. Let's see how many mistakes I made in
that argument.
I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
What's the difference between a conspiracy theorist and a new puppy? The puppy eventually grows up and quits whining.
-Steven Dutch
™ Version 4.2
(1)
