The Great Debate I: Is the Bible Reasonable?

As first discussed in this thread, the time has come to begin the great debate.

Bubba_the_Genius and Singularity will now discuss whether a belief in the Bible as a divine document is reasonable.

The rules are simple. Both participants agree to strictly follow the Terms of Service and all Senate rules. Shortly, both Bubba and Singularity will post their initial position statements. After that, each one will take a week to respond to the initial statements. We will have 3 rounds of responses, each participant taking turns to respond each week.

As this is to be a formal debate, no other responses will be allowed in this thread. The planning thread will be used for sepctators and commentary on the debate. I will be deleting any posts that do not come from participants in this debate.

With that said, let the debate begin!

Kimball Kinnison

 

God is no fonder of intellectual slackers than of any other slackers. If you are thinking of becoming a Christian, I warn you you are embarking on something which is going to take the whole of you, brains and all. - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

This debate focuses on the single question, "Is it logical for someone to believe the Bible is true but not believe that other religious texts are true -- on those points in which they disagree?" In other words, is Christianity -- the religion that upholds the Bible, Old and New Testament, as the inspired message of God to man -- reasonable?

I believe the answer is yes, and I will attempt to defend that position to the best of my ability. Before I begin, let me detail what I am not attempting.

I am not attempting to prove that all Christians base their beliefs on reason. For many of us, the choice to become a Christian was due in no small part to the fact that we were raised in Christian environments. (Indeed, I myself grew up in a Southern Baptist church. In college, I endeavored to scrutinize my faith, and I have concluded that Christianity stands up to scrutiny -- though that's not to say that I have stopped asking questions. And, I might add, that while a Christian culture may encourage a superficial membership in a local church, it seems to me that most people who take their faith seriously make a conscious decision to do so.) I'm not suggesting that all people walk a path of reason to reach Christianity; I'm just suggesting that such a path does exist.

I am also not attempting to prove that all others paths are not based on reason. There may be very good reasons for a man of logic to embrace other religions or to deny religion altogether. I'm simply suggesting that Christianity is at least as logical as any other path.

And I am not suggesting that mine is the final word on the matter. I still consider myself a novice among theologians, and if you the readers conclude that I've failed to pursuade, please do not conclude that Christianity itself is necessarily weak. With God's help, I will present the best case I can, but I know others can present even stronger cases.


Now, my argument can be reduced to two claims:

1. God exists.

2. Assuming that God exists, there is very strong evidence that the Gospels -- the accounts of Jesus, the central books of the Christian Bible -- are reliable and historically accurate.

Once Point #2 is accepted, the question of the Bible's validity is largely answered. If the accounts of Jesus' miraculous acts, including His accurate prediction of His death and resurection, are accurate, then it's reasonable to conclude that He is who He says He is: the incarnation of God. If that's true and the Gospels accurately record Jesus' trust in the Old Testament, then we can trust that He had "inside information" about those older books.

With no further ado, let me dive right in.


Part I. God exists.


I may be overstating my case when I say I have proof of God's existence; my proof certainly doesn't point to the Judeo-Christian God to the exclusion of all other religions. But, I believe that I have proof of the supernatural -- that I can point out a fatal flaw in the position of naturalism, leaving the belief in the supernatural as the only viable option.

(To be clear, naturalism is the belief that the universe -- space, time, matter, and energy -- is a closed system, that it is "the whole show." Supernaturalism is simply the belief in the opposite position, the belief that there is more than the universe of space and time.)

For naturalism to be true, it must be capable of explaining everything we know. This is not to say that the naturalists must know every physical law that governs the universe, but it must be reasonable to believe that the universe is ultimately governed only by physical laws. In fact, a frequent argument for naturalism is this: every facet of existence can be explained within the closed system of the natural u

 

Point of Clarification

The question of this debate, i.e., "Is it logical for someone to believe the Bible is true but not believe that other religious texts are true -- on those points in which they disagree?", addresses, as I see it, a core issue dividing theists and atheists. The Bible, as it is commonly defined, encompasses both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Accordingly, the specific category of theists to which this debate pertains is Christian theists. Also, for this statement and my remaining offerings in this debate I will refer to the Judeo-Christian god as ?God.? Further, I refer to a generic person in the masculine format of ?he?, ?his?, ?him? to avoid the somewhat cumbersome ?his/her? and ?he/she? syntax.

Debate Focus: What We Are and Are Not Debating

This debate will focus on whether belief in God and the Bible is reasonable. Ultimately, this issue pivots on whether belief in God and the Bible is arbitrary or not. This debate is not an inquiry into whether God actually exists or whether any supernatural entity or force must exist. This debate is not an inquiry into whether the Bible exhibits a particular quantum of ?historicity? either except to the point that my opponent can show that some aspect of the Bible is qualitatively distinguishable from other religious writings and texts.

My opponent?s task is a formidable one. My opponent must show that belief in God and the Bible is not arbitrary. The only way I can discern that my opponent can accomplish this task is to illustrate how the Bible is qualitatively superior to other religious texts and writings and/or how the Christian mythology is qualitatively superior to the multitude of other mythologies humans have conjured throughout history.

I am cautiously optimistic that my opponent will stay true to this task, focusing on the issue at hand. However, I must admit some resignation to the likelihood that we will travel down the well-worn paths of whether God in fact exists (or the macro-fact claim that a supernatural entity or force must exist) [The Christian Apologetic Argument] and/or whether the Bible exhibits a certain historical fidelity [The Biblical Historicity Argument]. I am willing to engage in debate on these points if my opponent chooses to do so. However, it is worth noting that debate on these topics will not address the issue of this debate unless my opponent has specific evidence that God exists and the Bible is historically accurate and can display this unequivocally. Of course, I highly doubt my opponent is so capable. This doubt should carry no inference as to the faculties of my opponent but rather the dearth of evidence to support these fact claims and the vast body of discourse preceding this debate on these fact claims that have yet to achieve a definitive conclusion concerning these claims.

The Arbitrary Nature of Faith

How comes it that we believe in anything? What process do we undertake, whether consciously or not, to arrive at a belief? For that matter, what is a belief? A belief is a conclusion about a specific fact claim, i.e., whether the fact claim is true or false. A fact claim is an assertion about some aspect of the universe. For example, consider the following fact claims:

Fact Claim 1: ?George W. Bush exists.?
Fact Claim 2: ?Purple gnomes live in the Sahara Desert.?

Generally, a person will adopt, consciously and/or unconsciously, a set of criteria to evaluate whether a fact claim is true or false. The person judges a specific fact claim using these criteria and references his empirical knowledge to assess the fact claim. Through such a process, the person arrives at a conclusion concerning whether the fact claim is true or false. This conclusion represents the belief of the person with respect to the fact claim. Alternatively, the person may ascertain that insufficient evidence is available to judge the fact claim conclusively as true or false. Further, the process of fact claim evaluation may be an ongoing or dynamic process where ne

 

To be brutally honest, I was expecting an opening argument that was more substantive and more coherent.


My opponent's opening argument does not strike me as all that substantive.

He has made some fairly bold claims about Christianity and its adherents. If these claims are true, then one could only conclude that Christians are irrational in their beliefs. But my opponent gives no reason whatsoever to actually believe his claims are true.

He asserts that, on the question of the existence of God, "Christian theists inexplicably abandon the process described above, one they deemed reliable enough for all other fact claims."

Where one would expect some sort of evidence backing up that claim, he restates the assertion: the claim of God's existence "is accorded, without any justification, special treatment in the mind of a Christian theist."

And again, while one is patiently waiting for proof, he simply restates the assertion once more: "Christian theists appear to abandon the process described above and opt for a separate single criterion - faith."

However it's phrased, the assertion that Christians abandon reason to believe in the existence of God is a bold one, one that many of us Christians reject as false. I believe the controversial claim should be supported by either evidence or logic -- or at least some sort of intuition that the claim is true. I found no such proof.

Given the limited nature of this debate, the evidence should have been presented in the opening argument. I should not have to waste my first rebuttal pointing out that there's very little to rebut.


Moreover, his opening argument does not seem all that coherent. Instead, it is rife with inconsistencies.

Before this debate began, I made clear the approach I intended to take. While my opponent seems to criticize my approach, the questions he raises bring us right back to it.

At the beginning, he laments the likelihood that "we will travel down the well-worn paths of whether God in fact exists." But he concludes his argument by insisting that I "must show that the support for Fact Claim 3 is qualitatively superior to these other fact claims."

And what is Fact Claim 3? "God exists."

So, must I show that the support for the claim that God exists is great while avoiding any actual argument that God exists?

More importantly, his primary criticism is that Christian theists apply a different, lower standard in accepting the claim that God exists, but he himself seems to apply different standards to different claims. He suggests that one should accept the claim that "George W. Bush exists" despite little face-to-face evidence and a litany of difficult philosophical questions. He suggests that it is reasonable to reject the claim that "Purple gnomes live in the Sahara" despite an inability to prove the claim "in absolute terms." Yet, on the question of the existence of God, he demands "specific evidence that God exists and the Bible is historically accurate and can display this unequivocally."

In other words, my opponent allows for the belief in Bush and the disbelief in purple gnomes when the evidence is good enough, but he requires irrefutable proof for the existence of God. All the while, his central complaint is that Christians have different standards for different claims.


I truly wish this first rebuttal was less confrontational. My hope was that my opponent's opening argument would be so well crafted that I would spend most of my time addressing the evidence, countering what I could while admitting what points were impenetrable. But his opening argument is what it is; my rebuttal must address what was written, not what I wanted to see.

My opponent does make a few points that merit replies, and while I believe my opening argument may touch on some of them, I will now take this opportunity to address them more completely.


First, my opponent asserts that the environment is a strong influence on a person and what religion he accepts. This I granted at the very beginning of my opening argu

 

This is my first response in the debate, this posting will address Bubba's opening statement only.


Defined Terms for Referencing Purposes


For purposes of this response, I am establishing defined terms for Bubba's opening statement ("BOS") and Bubba's first response ("B1"). I will continue this definitional format throughout the debate as a shorthand in referencing my opponent's commentary.


Debate Focus Redux


The stated focus of this debate centers around whether Christianity incorporates arbitrary faith. In the event that one can satisfy oneself that a god or pantheon of gods or similar entites must exist or is likely to exist then one must decide in which god or collection of gods one will place his faith. For a Christian to prove that his faith in the Bible and the Judeo-Christian God is not arbitrary he must illustrate that his faith is not the product of personal judgment or preference but rather due to distinct and empirical evidence differentiating the Christian mythos from all other mythoi.


In BOS, my opponent asserts that the appropriate response to the question "Is it logical for someone to believe the Bible is true but not believe that other religious texts are true -- on those points in which they disagree?" is "Yes." He later suggests that faith in Christianity is "at least as logical as any other path." [the emphasis being that of my opponent] I find this a remarkable admission from a Christian. On the one hand, my opponent believes that the Bible should be deferred to in areas where it disagrees with other religious texts but he "suggests" that faith in the Bible is at least as logical as faith in any other religious text or myth. If you have two source of equal authority and those sources conflict then why would you defer to one source and not the other? You could not solve this problem through normal epistemological appeals since both sources are equivalent in weighting. The devices to sort this impasse would be not based on logic. Such devices include, but are not limited to, "Because that is what my mom and dad taught me" or "Because I grew up in North Carolina" or "Because I will be ostracized by my family and friends".

My opponent's assertion that faith in Christianity is "at least as logical as any other path" is insufficient for the matter at hand. My opponent must illustrate that Christianity is superior to "any other path" in order to justify his appeal to one source, i.e., the Bible, rather than other sources. I stated as much in the challenge, thus far unanswered, in my opening statement where I stated: "I invite my opponent to state his case for why the fact claim that ?God exists? deserves the special treatment he has accorded it while he discards the fact claims that have been adhered to by so many presently and throughout time with equal if not exceeding fervor to that which he showers upon his beliefs. For if he cannot elevate his fact claim above others, distinguish his beliefs from the multitude of other beliefs, then prudence and candor warrant that he admit his faith is arbitrary."

BOS Summary and Initial Commentary

In BOS, my opponent states that his argument consists of two fact claims: (1) "God exists" [please recall that for purposes of this debate "God" refers to the Judeo-Christian conception of God as described in the Bible, both OT and NT], and; (2) "[a]ssuming that God exists, there is very strong evidence that the Gospels -- the accounts of Jesus, the central books of the Christian Bible -- are reliable and historically accurate."

I believe my opponent's first fact claim ("BC1") is straightforward and have no qualms concerning its construction. The syntax of my opponent's second claim ("BC2") is problematic, especially in the context of this debate and its stated focus. By evidence, I am assuming my opponent means empirical evidence that I can justify. I have no reason to believe otherwise based on my opponent's commentary in BOS or B1. I will leave the subjective qualifier "very

 

This rebuttal is being posted quite late, for primarily personal reasons. I apologize to both my opponent and those observing the debate. As a matter of fairness, I extend to my opponent the opportunity to take just as much time in crafting his replies, but in return I expect that the lateness of this rebuttal does not itself become a point of contention.


If I may say so, I am disappointed that my opponent stated that he would limit his rebuttal to my opening argument; worse, he actually limited his rebuttal to the first half of my opening argument. (Even then, he focused on just the main point of the first half.) By delaying his full rebuttal to my opening argument, he is giving me less of an opportunity to address that rebuttal. By delaying his response to my first rebuttal, he is making it less likely that he will actually respond to my request and substantiate the claims of his own opening argument.

That said, I find my opponent's first rebuttal to be much more substantive than his opening argument. So much the better, as I now present my second rebuttal, broken into several subjects.


Mere Christianity.

Before I get into the real meat of his rebuttal, I do want to address a minor point or two about C. S. Lewis' work, Mere Christianity.

First, Mere Christianity employs the Argument from Morality, not the Argument from Reason. Even then, Lewis doesn't rigorously prove that morality is an absolute truth; he appeals to the reader, relying on the fact that the reader likely already thinks and acts as if morality is absolute, regardless of what the reader claims to believe on an academic level. Mere Christianity informally argues from morality; Miracles more formally argues from reason.

Second, my opponent states that the book "was puportedly derived from the content of BBC radio addresses Lewis gave on the topic of Christianity in the leary 1940s." I'll leave aside the question of what he means by the "leary 1940s," whether he thinks that the Forties are somehow dramatically less trustworthy as a decade of literary thought.

But, "purportedly"?

I have never heard of any controversy over the assertion that Mere Christianity was based on talks on BBC Radio during the 1940's. The radio broadcasts were mentioned by Lewis himself in the book's preface, and a website devoted to Lewis provides the details of the broadcasts: seven consecutive Tuesdays, from February 22 to April 4, 1944, from 10:15 to 10:30 p.m. Nowhere have I seen anything suggesting that these broadcasts did not happen.

Not to argue from silence, but one would think that if Lewis fabricated such an easily verified and ultimately inconsequential assertion, somebody somewhere would have made hay about it. Lewis is revered by many as the preeminent Christian writer of the twentieth century; wouldn't an atheist or two have relished the opportunity to take him down a notch by revealing his rather obvious lie?

If my opponent has a good reason for doubting the claim that Mere Christianity arose from British radio broadcasts, I ask him to please provide that reason. If he doesn't, I would suggest that he be a little less militant in his skepticism of theists, as such skepticism reinforces the stereotype that atheists have an unreasonably high standard for the claims of theists, no matter how fantastic or mundane. Or, if this isn't the skepticism of an atheist, it betrays a subtle attempt to discredit C.S. Lewis without any substance behind it; such an attempt has no place in a serious debate.



"At least as logical."

Now, to my assertion that I believe Christianity is "at least as logical as any other path." Let me begin with a hypothetical senario:

Suppose a completely trustworthy individual offers you your pick of two envelopes.

Envelope #1, he says, contains exactly twenty dollars.

Envelope #2 contains at least twenty dollars.