Using Biblical Inerrancy to Prove God

Hello there. Today's bad argument is that used by Biblical Inerrantists. They argue that since the Bible has no errors, contradictions, etc. that it must be the written word of God. Hence, God must exist.

Circular Reasoning

The argument goes like this: "These books were written by dozens of people in different locations in different eras. Since it contains no errors or contradictions, it must be from God."

However, doesn't the Bible claim that God exists in the first place?

If the Bible has no errors and it claims that God exists, then it would follow that God exists. There need be no appeal to dozens of people in different locations who wrote the book. In order to claim that "The bible has no errors" one must assume that the statement that "God exists" is not in error. So, to use the fact that the bible has no errors to conclude that God exists is to use circular reasoning. One must presuppose God exists in order for the argument to get off the ground.

So, any argument that "the bible has no errors" to conclude that "God exists" is question-begging.

Lack of Contradiction is not so Spectacular

Even if it was proven that there were no contradictions in the Bible, would that really matter? Well maybe if they were randomly choosen books that were thrown together into one. However, they were not. The Council of Nicea in around A.D. 300 (something like that) decided what books would be in it. People figured out what books would be in it by vote. So, they probably had read them before and therefore, any large doctrinal disuptes could be taken care of. So, even if the Inerrantist were to prove that the Bible has no contradictions, that would be easy to account for given the fact that the books were chosen to be in the Bible. If they contradicted each other to a large degree, then they probably wouldn't have chosen them to be in the Bible in the first place.

Conclusion

Biblical Inerrancy is a belief that is difficult to uphold. There are many bad arguments that they use in defense of their position. I don't really care too much about this topic either. Even if there were some errors in the Bible, that wouldn't prove Christianity false. At most, it would just prove that God didn't write those parts.

One of the many bad abortion arguments

Here's a bad argument people who are for abortion tend to use.

"If we make abortion illegal, some people are going to do it anyways. The law will not stop them. Therefore, we should legalize abortion."

This argument has the form of: "If we make act X illegal, people will not obey the law. Therefore, we should make act X legal."

This argument makes as much sense as the following arguments:

"If we make murder illegal, some people are going to do it anyways. The law will not stop them. Therefore, we should legalize murder."

"If we make stealing illegal, some people are still going to do it anyways. The law will not stop them. Therefore, we should legalize stealing."

And so on.

So, simply because a certain law will be broken does not give us good reason to not make that law. This is seen with stealing, murdering, raping, etc. This argument does not work in these cases, therefore it does not work in the case of making a law concerning abortion.

What is relevant is not whether the people in the town will follow the law. What is relevant is whether people in the town should follow the law. This goes for rape, murder, stealing, etc. If a town made a law against rape, perhaps people would not follow it. It still remains the case, however, that we should make a law against rape.

So, one would have to argue, not that people would disobey the law in question but that they should disobey the law in question. This is a different claim however and cannot be supported by the argument at the top. A new argument would have to be brought in to support this new claim.

Playing God

Often, with many moral issues such as abortion, capital punishment, cloning, etc. people argue that the act would be wrong because committing the act is "Playing God." It is something that God and only God is allowed to do. If we were to perform the given act as well, that would be wrong. This argument suffers the most from not fulfilling its burden of proof. Once pressed for evidence, the argument will fall into a trap of circular reasoning.

Burden of Proof

If a person claims that something is true, then they have a responsibility to back it up with good arguments and/or evidence. This is called the "Burden of proof." If someone claims for example, that abortion is wrong, and is unwilling to offer up any argument in support, then their claim is unsupported. If a claim is left unsupported, then one does not have an obligation to "buy in" to that claim. One would be justified in not agreeing with that person.

Proof of Playing God

In order to prove that a given act is playing God, there are two things one must prove:

1. That God does the act.
2. That us doing the act is wrong.

Often times, people only prove statement 1 and act as if the truth of statement 1 implies the truth of statement 2. It however does not. There are many acts that God does that we are also allowed to do. God, for example, is merciful. Does that mean we shouldn't be merciful? God is truthful, does that mean we shouldn't be truthful? Would being truthful constitute playing God simply because it's something God does? No. So, one who wants to use the "Playing God" argument, they must prove both statements 1 and 2.

Here's an example: "God creates life. Therefore, if we were to create life, then we would be playing God. Hence, cloning is an example of playing God." When one asks, "Well what about sexual reproduction. Surely that creates life and is not playing God." The defender responds with, "Yes, but in that situation, nothing is forced. When you force life to exist, then you're playing God." Here's an example where the person is proving statement 1 to be true but hasn't proven statement 2 to be true. They are just simply assuming the truth of statement 2 or that statement 1 implies statement 2.

One cannot argue in the form of, "God does act X. Therefore, if we did act X that would be playing God." The person has to argue in the form of, "God does act X. It is wrong for us to do act X. Therefore, if we did act X, we would be playing God."

Begging the Question

An argument can be shown to beg the question when the person assumes the truth of the conclusion to support one of the premises in the argument.

Here's the argument in premise--conclusion form:

1. Cloning is playing God.
2. If an act is playing God, then that act is wrong.
3. Therefore, cloning is wrong.

The problem is, given what I have said above, in order to prove that one is "playing God," they must assume that the act is wrong in the first place. If you are assuming the act is wrong in order to prove the act to be wrong, then you are begging the question. The full argument, in premise-conclusion format, really looks like this:

1. God forces life to exist.
2. It is wrong for humans to force life to exist.
3. Therefore, if humans forced life to exist, they would be playing God.
4. Therefore, forcing life to exist is wrong for humans.
5. Hence, it is wrong for humans to clone.

But of course, it is obvious that begging the question has occurred. In order to prove that cloning is playing God, they must assume that it’s wrong in the first place. But of course, whether it’s wrong in the first place is what is up to debate and hence will be part of the conclusion of the argument. Hence, when pressed for its burden of proof, the "playing God" objection begs the question.

Conclusion

When people use the “playing God” objection, they often then say that people who don’t agree with them must believe that God does not exist. However, one can reasonably disagree with their argument and still be a theist (as what I have said shows). Notice how I never disputed God’s existence in order to make my argument.

The "playing God" objection can be shown to fail its burden of proof. Once pressed for evidence, it falls into the trap of circular reasoning. It must assume the act is wrong in order to prove that we are playing God. But of course, whether the act is wrong is what we are discussing in the first place.

The “playing God” objection does not work against cloning, it does not work against abortion, it does not work against any social issue that one would like to bring up. It is, like most of the arguments brought up in moral disputes, a bad argument that a critical thinker would not accept.

Earlier posts

The posts before this were made on another blog, they were good posts so I thought I'd post them here as well.

"Jesus died for your sins"

Central to the idea of Protestant Christianity (and perhaps Catholics, I'm not sure) is that we are all sinners and were doomed to hell. Then, Jesus died on the cross and "paid the price" so we could have a chance at eternal life.

However, how could one person's suffering pay the price for someone else's sin?

If I murder someone, can I have my son go to jail for me? Or my parents even? No, if I commit a wrongdoing, then I am the one who has to pay. No one else can "pay the price" for my wrongdoing. If someone else is willing to suffer for me, that doesn't somehow magically get me off the hook.

Imagine if the judge would allow someone else to do my sentence for me. I get convicted and he says, "Okay, your mother can go to jail instead if she likes." If the judge accepted my mother going to jail instead of me for what I did wrong, that would make the judge a bad person. He would be saying, essentially, "I don't care who suffers for this wrong act, as long as someone does." Surely, this is not a good judge.

A good person would make sure that the person who suffers is the one who committed the crime. If someone else suffers, that does not somehow absolve the other person of their wrongdoing.

A good person would not accept stand-in justice. Stand-in justice is when person A does a wrong act but person B suffers because of person A's wrong act.

So, how is it that Jesus paid the price for my sins?

One may say that God decided that Jesus' suffering was sufficient to pay the price. However, that makes God evil. If the judge in my hypothetical story accepted my mother going to jail as sufficient, then that would make him a bad person. The same goes for God.

So, if God is good (and Christians say he is) then God would not accept Jesus' suffering as sufficient to pay for our sins. Only our own suffering would be sufficient.

One may say that God is being merciful to us because Jesus had to suffer. However, notice how that response doesn't work in my hypothetical scenario. If the judge saw my mom go to jail, he wouldn't be allowed to say, "Hey, okay she suffered so I can be merciful to you. If she didn't go to jail for you, then I couldn't be merciful to you." Surely, this does not work.

So, in conclusion, Jesus could not have paid the price for my sins. That is because only the person who commits the sin can pay the price for it. If someone accepts stand-in justice (like if someone accepted my mom going to jail for my wrongdoing) then that would make them a bad person. Since God is supposed to be a good person, he would not accept Jesus' suffering as sufficient for paying the price for my sins.

"We have all done bad things. Therefore, no person is better than any other."

The above quote is a popular argument. People who use it are using bad reasoning. They are using the argument solely because it suits their particular belief. That belief being that no person is better than any other. Often times, it's the bad people who are using this argument. If one can say, "It's okay that I'm bad because you're no better," then it makes them feel a lot better.

However, these people are wrong.

To argue that "We have all done bad things, therefore, no person is better than the other" makes as much sense as saying, "We all have a certain height, therefore no person is taller than the other" or "We all have a certain weight, therefore no person is heavier than ther other."

Clearly, we have all done bad things. However, some people have committed a more numerous amount of bad acts than others. Some people have committed acts that are worse than others in terms of degree (say the difference between raping a woman and stealing a candy bar).

Since we all have not done the same bad acts, then it follows that some people have done more bad than others.

Of course, some people are worse than others. Hitler is obviously a lot worse than Ghandi or Martin Luther King, Jr. There are many examples that show this.

How people find the argument that "We have all done bad things, therefore no person is better than the other" compelling is beyond me. Thinking about it for oh, about two seconds easily proves it to be false.

Don't use this argument, it's bad. If you find someone who uses this argument, sit them down, tell them they are mistaken, and pull out a history book and show them how they are not as bad as some people who have lived in the past.

Thought Experiment: Would you die for someone else?

Often, I give myself thought experiments to see what I would do in certain situations. Often, the thought experiments have far-reaching implications that it doesn't seem like they would have. It's like looking under a rock to find a piece of gold. Here is one that is like this:

Imagine you are captured by an escaped murderer. He tells you that he will either (a) kill you or (b) kill some random person. If you are killed, this person will find out about your sacrifice. If this random person is killed instead, only you will know and you will have to go through the rest of your life knowing that you could have prevented someone's death.

I used to answer this question in the positive. I would give my life for someone else because, once they found out about my sacrifice, they would live their life with more pride and thankfulness than ever before. They would not put this one to waste because they know that someone somewhere sacrificed a lot to keep them alive and well.

Then, I realized that I am in the same position that this fictional person is in. My parents have sacrificed very much for me to be alive. They work endless hours so I can get an education and end up becoming a successful person. There have been people who have fought for my rights as an American citizen and have died in the process. These people have sacrificed things that had value for them. The soldier loved his family and loved his friends. He certainly did not want to die on the battlefield and leave his wife in distress and alone to raise his children. However, he took the chance to fight for the rights that all people deserve, including myself.

Thank you to all the people who have made sacrifices for me. Because of this, I am grateful for being alive and grateful for the opportunities I have.

And you should be as well.

Was Hitler a Christian? Should anyone care?

I hate the debate between the Christians and the non-Christians concerning whether Hitler was a Christian. It has no interesting implications either way. If Hitler was a Christian, it says nothing about Christians in general or whether their religion is true. Likewise, if Hitler was not a Christian, it says nothing about non-Christians in general or whether their 'Non-Christian' position is true.

Guilt by Statistical Association

You get a knock at your door. You open it to find a policeman standing there with a warrant for your arrest. You ask what you have done that is wrong. He replies, "The other day, someone was murdered by someone who owned a two-story house. Since you, sir, own a two-story house, you must be a bad person and therefore, you must come with us."

Certainly the cop has made a mistake. Simply because someone who owned a two-story house murdered someone does not say anything about all or most of the people who own a two-story house.

It is likewise with religious claims. If Hitler was a Christian and did a bad thing, then it says nothing about whether Christians in general are good people. If Hitler was an atheist and he did a bad thing, then it says nothing about whether atheists in general are good people.

Truth Value

If Hitler was a Christian, would that prove Christianity false? No. Simply because person A is a bad person, it does not follow that person A's religion must therefore be false. This is nothing but argument ad hominem. If you look at the past, you can certainly find Christians who have done things that were terribly wrong. If you look at the past, you can certainly find non-Christians who have done things that were terribly wrong. Therefore, using the inference that "Person A did something wrong" to conclude "Person A's religion is false" is not going to get you anywhere. One can find people of his religion who have done bad things and people not of his religion who have done bad things.

So, if Hitler was a Christian, Christianity would not be proven false. If Hitler was a Non-Christian, it would not prove the Non-Christian position false.

Blaming 'Religion' for the evils of the past

Often, atheists will blame religion for the evils of the past. Because of religion, we had the inquisition. Because of religion, we had 9/11 happen. Because of religion, many people have died and suffered.

However, in doing this, they are only identifying certain religious beliefs that have made people do bad things. The Islamic terrorists believed that Allah commanded them to kill innocent civilians. The Christians who participated in the Inquisition believed the same about their Christian God. Certainly, the belief that "God commanded X and God will punish those who do not follow X" will cause people to want to obey God. If they believe that God commanded the killing of innocent people, they will be more likely to carry about that act.

However, if they believe that God commanded us to take care of infants, they will be more likely to do so. If they believe that God commanded them to feed the starving children, then they will be more likely to do so.

The problem isn't that the person believes in God. The problem is that the person believes that God has commanded the killing of innocent people. The problem is that the person believes God has commanded X where X is obviously a wrong act.

So, what's the 'moral' of the story, if you will? The moral of the story is not to ditch religion necessarily. The moral of the story is to scrutinize religious claims that God has given a certain command. If the command is obviously immoral, then either (a) God did not give it or (b) the God they are listening to is immoral. Either way, the command should not be followed.

If someone were to follow it anyways, then it's simply because of their willingness to perform the wrong act. A good person, on the other hand, would not be willing to perform the wrong act. He will ask for more evidence that God commanded this than merely the person's word or merely because someone thousands of years ago wrote it down in a book. A good person would be reluctant to killing innocent people and would therefore be reluctant to believe that it is the right thing to do. He would ask for a large amount of evidence before concluding that it is the right act. It is my position that we should do the same.

Conclusion

So, in conclusion, religion is not to blame for the evils that religious people have committed. Only certain religious beliefs have caused the evils of the past. One cannot therefore generalize to say that all religious belief is to blame. The people themselves are to blame for not asking for large amounts of evidence that God commanded something that, on the face of it, was immoral. This shows that they just wanted to kill innocent people or just wanted to kill Non-Christians. This makes them a bad person.

Religion also cannot be to blame when we look at people like Hitler. If Hitler was religious, that does not mean that it is wrong to be religious. If Hitler was not religious, it does not mean that it is wrong to not be religious. Looking at one person in a group to characterize the group as a whole is obviously not the correct thing to do.

If Hitler was a Christian, that does not make Christianity false. If Hitler was not a Christian, that does not make the non-Christian position false. One can find people who are Christians and who aren't Christians who have done terrible things. Whether a person in the given religion has done terrible things tells us nothing about whether the religion is true or not.

People who participate in the "Was Hitler a Christian?" debate often forget these key points that make the entire debate useless. Whether he was does not affect whether it is wrong to be a Christian or whether Christianity is false.

Two popular rationalizations defeated

Often times, when people commit wrong acts, they do so with rationalizations. The scientist who performed vivisections on animals would say, "Animals can't feel pain, so this is morally permissible." Those who endorsed slavery in the 1800s said, "There is nothing wrong with having your children do work for you in exchange for food and clothing. If the child runs away, it is alright to find the child and return it to its home. Black people are similar to children so therefore, slavery is not wrong."

People who use these arguments are worthy of blame. Only a bad person would believe that animals weren't able to feel pain or try to use the above argument in defense of slavery. This is a person who does what he wants and attempts to fit morality into what he wants.

Two bad rationalizations I have heard often:

1. I heard this one today. This girl threw down two empty Starbucks containers onto the ground. She was with a group of friends. A guy in that group said, "It's a good thing they hire janitors. It's okay, I throw shit down a lot at work. It gives the janitors job security."

The person attempts to make littering look okay by bringing up something good (job security). Since job security has been promoted, the act in question is not wrong.

However, should I excuse murdering because it gives cops job security? It gives them people to catch. It gives judges someone to execute. It gives lawyers someone to defend. Murderers, rapists, and theives all promote job security for certain individuals. However, it is not the case that we should excuse murderers, rapists, and theives as not committing any wrongdoing. Simply because an act promotes job security does not mean it is permissible.

2. I've heard this one in the past. A person gets drunk at a party and cheats on their boyfriend or girlfriend. In response, in an attempt to justify the behavior, the person says, "Well, I was drunk. While I was drunk, I didn't have the choice but to hook up with/have sex with the person in question. Therefore, what I did was not wrong."

Often, this argument then digresses into whether one has control of their actions while they are drunk. This is, however, not relevant. There is a more fundamental mistake in the argument.

Imagine someone who drives recklessly. He follows the person in front of him too closely. One day, he is following someone too closely and the person in front of him slams on his brakes (for a legitimate reason). As a result, the person who is following too closely does not have enough time to react before he plows into the car's rear bumper. Can this person say in defense, "Well, when I was following you very closely, I didn't have enough time to react. Therefore, I am not to blame."

No he cannot.

A good driver would not follow the person in front of him that closely. A good person would have given himself some space so he would have time to react. A good person would have taken certain precautions to avoid committing a wrong act.

It is similar in the case of the person who cheated due to being intoxicated.

The same way that a good person would take precautions to the wrong act of plowing into the car in front of them, a good person would take precautions to cheating on their partner. One of these precautions would obviously include not getting extremely intoxicated at a party where one knows there will be members of the opposite sex attending. Doing this makes cheating on their partner a probable act and hence makes committing a wrong act probable. If a person fails to take these precautions, he is to blame for anything that goes wrong.

So, both arguments do not work. They are rationalizations made by wrongdoers who are attempting to escape punishment. Now that these arguments are identified, I hope that you do not make the mistake of (a) using these arguments or (b) granting them any type of soundness.

You are now a better person having read this post. =)