How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[boatsnguitars]

At this point I really have to wonder about you. You seem to be overly convinced by your own arguments, as if you've solved everything. There is no reason for me to continue to speak to someone who thinks they are the only person in the world who knows the truth about so much.

Instead of answering any of my questions, you just make personal comments about me. This is an indication you have no rational response to the debate.

Only Theists tend to claim they know all about them, as if they can read God's mind. Not only do I not believe they can read God's mind, but I don't believe there is a God, and they haven't shown that there is.

Baseless accusation. No theist, including me, is claiming to know all about them or to read God's mind.

Do you have any justification for your belief there is no God? If you do, why are not willing to present it? Should we create a head-to-head debate for you to present your case?

Theists claim they've made the argument, as if making an argument makes it true. This is preposterous.

This is a debate forum. This is what we do here, to defend our position. Just because a person defends their position, it's not making the argument true.

Even if the only argument in the world, without rebuttal, was made by Otseng in favor of a God wouldn't mean a God exists. He thinks it does, or so it appears he is trying to convince people of something like this (claiming that if I don't rebut his argument for God means I lose the argument and he wins it.)

If there is no rational counter by the skeptics to my arguments, then it shows my position is more rational.

2. Moral values are shared among humanity, so when he asks if I agree with the moral values we've come to decide are common to us, he seems to think this is an argument for Objective Moral Values.

I'm simply providing examples of objective moral values. If you disagree with them, you are free to do so.

Let him ask, "Do you believe gay people should be killed, and slaves can be beaten?" and we will come to the opposite situation where he will have to defend the God of his moral values.

No, I do not believe gay people should be killed or slaves should be beaten. So, these are examples of subjective moral values. The question though it not subjective moral values, but do objective moral values exist?

There are many moral values, and just because he has chosen a few that we agree on doesn't make them Objective Moral Values.

Of course there are many moral values. At a minimum there are subjective moral values and objective moral values.

He seems to think they do, otherwise, why does he keep asking?

Have you even answered my questions? You can simply answer a yes or no to them. Then we can continue to discussion of why you think they should not be considered objective.

3. To continue from above, even if we agreed on some moral values, all I can honestly say is that we seem to be in agreement.

Why do you have to hypothetically answer the questions? Or are you hesitant to admit objective moral values exist?

He seems comfortable extrapolating and deciding that this must mean OMVs exist. However, again from above, if he asked me 2,000 years ago if slavery was good, we both might answer "yes." He's presume from that, that OMVs exist!

I'll clarify my position on slavery in a separate post.

The fact is, he can't know OMVs exist anymore than he knows what caused the BB. He's arguing from ignorance. True ignorance.

Ignorance is if someone does not offer a viable rational justification for something. In the case of the origin of the universe and objective moral values, I have offered them.

4. He keeps claiming I have to prove God doesn't exist to argue about moral values.

I've never claimed you have to prove anything. I'm asking you to present your arguments that no Gods exist. Why are you not willing to do this?

He has conceded that if Atheism is true, then Moral Values are subjective.

Yes, I concede to that. Are you also willing to concede if objective moral values exist, then God must exist?

"Atheist philosopher J. L. Mackie accepted that, if objective moral truths existed, they would warrant a supernatural explanation."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_morality

He can't prove a God exists, and he's the one making the claim.

Nobody can prove anything, whether it is God who exists or God does not exist. But, what we can do is present our arguments and evidence. And like I said, I've already done that in the topic of cosmology and now doing that with the topic of morality.

I only claim that humanity exists and we develop moral values. He's annoyed by this, but that's on him.

Who's the one being annoyed? But I will point out to readers that the issue is not moral values in general, but objective moral values. So it is simply a diversion to say humanity exists and we develop moral values.

5. However, I don't feel a need to argue that I am right - like he feels the need to.

This is a debating forum. If you make a claim, you need to back it up, otherwise it is just an unsupported opinion.

I accept that there are things beyond my knowledge set. I accept that while I believe certain things (some with greater or lesser confidence), I still know a lot less.

That's fine. But don't then go on accusing me of not knowing about morality when you are not willing to present your justifications while I've been presenting mine.

edit: I've said it before, and will continue to say until it isn't true: Theists don't understand morality.

Moral values are tricky. They do seem to vary over time, they do seem to only exists in some species. (He'd argue that only humans have moral values, I imagine, whereas I don't think moral values are so precisely defined.)

Of course, subjective morals do exist.

I grant animals might have subjective moral values, but they do not have objective moral values. Objective morality would only apply to people.

I've made many arguments, provided articles and videos for why people believe OMVs can obtain in an Atheistic world. I have gone into great depth. Otseng doesn't understand. I can't help that.

Yes, I don't understand your point, especially since you've stated, "if Atheism is true, then Moral Values are subjective." You can help by having a consistent position and argumentation.

Saying that I don't have a rational response, then misrepresenting my position is the same as an ad hom, just a little more subtle.

I will try one more time:
1. If Atheism is true, Otseng believes that entails that morals must be subjective. If this were my argument, I'd be done. I don't have to disprove a God, theists have to prove a God.
2. If Atheism is true, some philosophers argue that OMVs can exist. With this I acknowledge the truth of the current debate. I also show that Otseng doesn't have to prove a God exists or not, Otseng has to prove the existence of OMVs. He hasn't. He's provided red herrings and conjecture.
3. If Theism is true, morals could be subjective or objective. Without interviewing God, we'd have no idea - and God ain't talking. If Otseng wants to speak for God, have at it, but I don't believe Otseng speaks for God. He certainly hasn't proved God exists.
4. All Otseng has said is "If God exists, and he created OMVs, then OMVs exists."
Put another way, Otseng is arguing, "If OMVs exist, OMVs exist. If you believe as I do that the do, then you agree that all my red herrings look particularly appetizing!"

At no point has Otseng provided an argument to support the reality of OMVs existing. He's provided a bunch of hobbyist-level apologetics that are convincing only to those who want to be convinced.

[otseng]

Morality of the Bible is a huge topic and I'm systemically going through it. We are diving into the morality issue and now specifically talking about slavery.

I'll let the reader assess who's the one avoiding and deflecting and making the hypocritical accusations.

This not true.
You are not talking with Athetotheist and boatsnguitars about slavery but objective morality.

Q: So why can't you talk with me about objective morality with me, huh?

We are talking about the philosophy of morality, which I raised with Atheism and morality. I already gave my concluding argument about it in Summary argument of atheism and morality. I've since moved on to discuss about genocide. With slavery, I started the discussion with What is slavery?. Genocide and slavery is perhaps the top two topics regarding Old Testament ethics, so I want to spend extensive time on these. Other topics about morality that will be covered in the future include rape, homosexuality, and disrespectful children.

[boatsnguitars]

Is it wrong to rape someone?
Is it wrong to torture babies?
Is it OK to not bring any justice to those responsible for the Holocaust?
Is it acceptable to be unfaithful to your spouse?
Is it fine to steal from someone?
Is it wrong to murder someone?
Was it OK for the kid to cut in front of me yesterday in the grocery store checkout line?

Here, I provide a list of things that were considered moral under Theism, even recently. However, imagine if Otseng were asking me about OMVs 3000 years ago? This might be the list that he'd expect me to agree with.

Ancient Otseng would have said, "You don't believe there are Objective Moral Value!?!?! What about these!:

Slavery:
Slavery was widely accepted in many ancient societies, and individuals were often regarded as property.

Human Sacrifice:
Certain ancient cultures practiced human sacrifice as part of religious rituals, considering it morally acceptable to appease deities.

Gladiator Games:
Ancient Romans found entertainment in gladiator games, where individuals fought to the death for public amusement.

Infanticide:
In some ancient cultures, the practice of killing infants, especially if they were deemed undesirable, was considered acceptable.

Discrimination Against Women:
Many ancient societies upheld patriarchal structures that marginalized and restricted the rights of women.

Blood Sports:
Beyond gladiator games, various societies engaged in blood sports involving animals or humans for public entertainment.

Class Inequality:
Hierarchical class systems were often entrenched in ancient societies, with significant disparities in wealth and privilege.

Animal Sacrifice:
Ritualistic sacrifice of animals was prevalent in several ancient religions as a means of appeasing deities or seeking divine favor.

Duels and Trial by Combat:
In certain cultures, duels and trial by combat were accepted methods of resolving disputes, even to the death.

Ethnic and Cultural Discrimination:
Ancient civilizations often exhibited discrimination based on ethnicity, culture, or tribal affiliations.

Concubinage:
Having concubines or secondary wives was socially acceptable in various ancient cultures, even if not considered moral by today's standards.

Indentured Servitude:
Systems of indentured servitude or bonded labor were common in ancient societies.

Inhumane Punishments:
Cruel and unusual punishments, such as public executions and torture, were often accepted methods of justice.

Child Labor:
Children were frequently engaged in labor from a young age in various ancient societies.

Blood Feuds:
Retaliatory violence or blood feuds were sometimes seen as a just means of settling disputes in ancient societies.

Let's answer Otseng's question in another 3000 years.

But, let Otseng clarify his position today:
Is it wrong to rape someone? According to the Law, or to the well being of the person, or in some grand, God-Only-Knows way?
Is it wrong to torture babies? According to the Law, or to the well being of the person, or in some grand, God-Only-Knows way?
Is it OK to not bring any justice to those responsible for the Holocaust? According to the Law, or to the well being of the person, or in some grand, God-Only-Knows way?
Is it acceptable to be unfaithful to your spouse? According to the Law, or to the well being of the person, or in some grand, God-Only-Knows way?
Is it fine to steal from someone? According to the Law, or to the well being of the person, or in some grand, God-Only-Knows way?
Is it wrong to murder someone? According to the Law, or to the well being of the person, or in some grand, God-Only-Knows way?
Was it OK for the kid to cut in front of me yesterday in the grocery store checkout line? According to the Law, or to the well being of the person, or in some grand, God-Only-Knows way?

Or, bless his heart, is he asking how I personally feel about those things?

[alexxcJRO]

Morality of the Bible is a huge topic and I'm systemically going through it. We are diving into the morality issue and now specifically talking about slavery.

I'll let the reader assess who's the one avoiding and deflecting and making the hypocritical accusations.

This not true.
You are not talking with Athetotheist and boatsnguitars about slavery but objective morality.

Q: So why can't you talk with me about objective morality with me, huh?

We are talking about the philosophy of morality, which I raised with Atheism and morality. I already gave my concluding argument about it in Summary argument of atheism and morality. I've since moved on to discuss about genocide. With slavery, I started the discussion with What is slavery?. Genocide and slavery is perhaps the top two topics regarding Old Testament ethics, so I want to spend extensive time on these. Other topics about morality that will be covered in the future include rape, homosexuality, and disrespectful children.

Changing like the weather. Typical.

You were speaking of objective morality.
I wanted to talk about objective morality.
You said: "The current topic is slavery."

Now the topic is not just slavery.
Ridiculous.

[boatsnguitars]

Is it wrong to rape someone?
Is it wrong to torture babies?
Is it OK to not bring any justice to those responsible for the Holocaust?
Is it acceptable to be unfaithful to your spouse?
Is it fine to steal from someone?
Is it wrong to murder someone?
Was it OK for the kid to cut in front of me yesterday in the grocery store checkout line?

Here, I provide a list of things that were considered moral under Theism, even recently. However, imagine if Otseng were asking me about OMVs 3000 years ago? This might be the list that he'd expect me to agree with.

Ancient Otseng would have said, "You don't believe there are Objective Moral Value!?!?! What about these!:

Slavery:
Slavery was widely accepted in many ancient societies, and individuals were often regarded as property.

Human Sacrifice:
Certain ancient cultures practiced human sacrifice as part of religious rituals, considering it morally acceptable to appease deities.

Gladiator Games:
Ancient Romans found entertainment in gladiator games, where individuals fought to the death for public amusement.

Infanticide:
In some ancient cultures, the practice of killing infants, especially if they were deemed undesirable, was considered acceptable.

Discrimination Against Women:
Many ancient societies upheld patriarchal structures that marginalized and restricted the rights of women.

Blood Sports:
Beyond gladiator games, various societies engaged in blood sports involving animals or humans for public entertainment.

Class Inequality:
Hierarchical class systems were often entrenched in ancient societies, with significant disparities in wealth and privilege.

Animal Sacrifice:
Ritualistic sacrifice of animals was prevalent in several ancient religions as a means of appeasing deities or seeking divine favor.

Duels and Trial by Combat:
In certain cultures, duels and trial by combat were accepted methods of resolving disputes, even to the death.

Ethnic and Cultural Discrimination:
Ancient civilizations often exhibited discrimination based on ethnicity, culture, or tribal affiliations.

Concubinage:
Having concubines or secondary wives was socially acceptable in various ancient cultures, even if not considered moral by today's standards.

Indentured Servitude:
Systems of indentured servitude or bonded labor were common in ancient societies.

Inhumane Punishments:
Cruel and unusual punishments, such as public executions and torture, were often accepted methods of justice.

Child Labor:
Children were frequently engaged in labor from a young age in various ancient societies.

Blood Feuds:
Retaliatory violence or blood feuds were sometimes seen as a just means of settling disputes in ancient societies.

Let's answer Otseng's question in another 3000 years.

But, let Otseng clarify his position today:
Is it wrong to rape someone? According to the Law, or to the well being of the person, or in some grand, God-Only-Knows way?
Is it wrong to torture babies? According to the Law, or to the well being of the person, or in some grand, God-Only-Knows way?
Is it OK to not bring any justice to those responsible for the Holocaust? According to the Law, or to the well being of the person, or in some grand, God-Only-Knows way?
Is it acceptable to be unfaithful to your spouse? According to the Law, or to the well being of the person, or in some grand, God-Only-Knows way?
Is it fine to steal from someone? According to the Law, or to the well being of the person, or in some grand, God-Only-Knows way?
Is it wrong to murder someone? According to the Law, or to the well being of the person, or in some grand, God-Only-Knows way?
Was it OK for the kid to cut in front of me yesterday in the grocery store checkout line? According to the Law, or to the well being of the person, or in some grand, God-Only-Knows way?

Or, bless his heart, is he asking how I personally feel about those things?

IN addition to the above post that I hope otseng responds to, I'd like to add the argument for objective moral values under naturalism, as proposed by Richard Boyd:

Richard Boyd is known for his work in metaethics, specifically addressing the issue of moral realism under naturalism. Boyd's argument is outlined in his paper "How to Be a Moral Realist" (1988). Below is a simplified version of his argument, including key points and concepts:

1. The Argument from Moral Explanatory Power:
Premise 1: Moral properties are capable of explaining the moral facts, such as why certain actions are morally right or wrong.
Premise 2: Natural properties alone cannot adequately explain the moral facts.
Conclusion: Therefore, there must be irreducible moral properties.
Boyd argues that moral properties provide better explanatory power for our moral judgments than purely naturalistic properties. He contends that moral explanations, which refer to irreducible moral properties, are more robust and comprehensive in capturing the normative aspects of moral discourse.

2. The Argument from Supervenience:
Premise 1: Moral properties supervene on natural properties, meaning that any two situations that are alike in their natural properties must be alike in their moral properties.
Premise 2: If moral properties supervene on natural properties, then moral properties are dependent on natural properties.
Conclusion: Moral properties exist and are dependent on natural properties.
Boyd emphasizes that the supervenience of moral properties on natural properties is consistent with a naturalistic worldview. This argument highlights the dependence of moral properties on natural properties while acknowledging their distinctiveness.

3. The Argument from Severe Error Theory:
Premise 1: If a theory T systematically generates moral judgments that are seriously mistaken, then T is a severely error-theoretic theory.
Premise 2: A naturalistic theory of morality that systematically generates moral judgments that are seriously mistaken would be severely error-theoretic.
Conclusion: Therefore, a naturalistic theory of morality that avoids severe error theory should be accepted.
Boyd addresses the concern that a naturalistic theory of morality might lead to severe error theory, where our moral judgments are systematically mistaken. He argues that a satisfactory naturalistic theory of morality should avoid such severe errors.

Boyd proposes a foundation for a Moral Theory:
1. Compatibility with Empirical Facts: The moral theory should be consistent with the empirical facts about human beings, their psychology, and their social interactions. It should be grounded in the natural world.

2. Explanatory Power: The theory should possess sufficient explanatory power to account for the normative aspects of morality. Moral properties, according to Boyd, play a crucial role in explaining why certain actions are right or wrong.

3. Avoidance of Severe Error Theory: The naturalistic moral theory should not lead to systematically mistaken moral judgments. Boyd acknowledges the importance of avoiding severe error theory to maintain the credibility of a naturalistic approach to morality.

Or, we can refer to Sam Harris:
Harris argues for an objective basis for morality grounded in the well-being of conscious creatures. In his book "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values" (2010), Harris posits that there are objective truths to be known about human well-being. He suggests that science, particularly neuroscience, can help us understand what actions and social structures lead to the flourishing of conscious beings. Harris defends a form of moral realism, asserting that there are objective facts about what contributes to human well-being and what does not.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3680

From what I can gather about religious naturalism, it does not posit any god exists.

I referred to the Religious Naturalism page because it features versions of the Golden Rule from various religions, showing that the rule is far from unique in the Bible.

But you also said you are a theist:

And I've already clarified that I hold a theist worldview.

So, how do you reconcile that?

See above.

[otseng]

Saying that I don't have a rational response, then misrepresenting my position is the same as an ad hom, just a little more subtle.

You're just repeating yourself and didn't address any of my questions. I'll let readers decide whose position is more rational.

Is it wrong to rape someone?
Is it wrong to torture babies?
Is it OK to not bring any justice to those responsible for the Holocaust?
Is it acceptable to be unfaithful to your spouse?
Is it fine to steal from someone?
Is it wrong to murder someone?
Was it OK for the kid to cut in front of me yesterday in the grocery store checkout line?

Let's answer Otseng's question in another 3000 years.

More avoidance of answering questions.

Here, I provide a list of things that were considered moral under Theism, even recently. However, imagine if Otseng were asking me about OMVs 3000 years ago? This might be the list that he'd expect me to agree with.

Some are objective and some are subjective. The point is not trying to classify all situations and decide if they are subjective or objective. The point is objective morals do exist and everything is not subjective.

Or, bless his heart, is he asking how I personally feel about those things?

Yes, I'm asking for your position.

[otseng]

Changing like the weather. Typical.

I'll let readers judge who is the one trying to change the topic. As for slavery, why do you avoid discussing this topic? Isn't this one of the top ethical issues brought up by skeptics? Even further, why isn't any skeptic willing to debate me on this topic? Like skeptics commonly quip, all I hear is crickets.

[otseng]

IN addition to the above post that I hope otseng responds to, I'd like to add the argument for objective moral values under naturalism, as proposed by Richard Boyd:

Richard Boyd is known for his work in metaethics, specifically addressing the issue of moral realism under naturalism. Boyd's argument is outlined in his paper "How to Be a Moral Realist" (1988). Below is a simplified version of his argument, including key points and concepts:

I sense that equivocation is in play when what I'm asking about is objective morality and you cite moral realism. How exactly do you define moral realism?

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #3680

From what I can gather about religious naturalism, it does not posit any god exists.

I referred to the Religious Naturalism page because it features versions of the Golden Rule from various religions, showing that the rule is far from unique in the Bible.

But you also said you are a theist:

And I've already clarified that I hold a theist worldview.

So, how do you reconcile that?

See above.

So you are not a religious naturalist? You are simply borrowing an argument from a worldview that you do not hold to?