tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post6917180795740311143..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The Word of GodRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-60125217207256325202007-09-13T04:25:00.000-04:002007-09-13T04:25:00.000-04:00"You admitted that, from your viewpoint, it would ..."You admitted that, from your viewpoint, it would be viciously circular if you are simply holding up your copy of the book and pointing to the cover. So are you now saying that a viciously argument is a rational argument?"<BR/><BR/>Clearly I didn't explain myself very well. What I said initially was that it would be circular if you used a copy of a book to try to prove the authorship of the same book, which should be self-evident. Proving the authorship is different to merely asserting the authorship - pointing to the cover would merely be asserting authorship, not proving it.<BR/><BR/>You then accused me of saying that "it's irrational to believe that Hemingway wrote A Farewell To Arms simply because it says so on the book cover", whereas in fact I said no such thing at any point. (I should also point out that a rational argument can be circular, although you appear to believe differently. I'm not sure why.)<BR/><BR/>Try and focus on the actual properties of the book you are holding. It's not "the book" that says that Hemingway wrote AFTA - it's the publisher who put the name on the cover, and one is right to have a certain level of trust in the publisher, for a variety of reasons.<BR/><BR/>The text of AFTA itself proves nothing about the authorship - the name of the author is not contained definitively within the text. The text of the novel is not the same as the book you are holding - the book contains many elements that are not text, such as metadata (author name, publication date, etc) and marketing (advance publicity for other books).<BR/><BR/>The reason that you trust that Hemingway wrote the AFTA is because an external authority - the publisher - asserts it, and you have a certain level of trust that the publisher is telling you the truth. (Sometimes publishers don't tell the truth, however, and so this trust is never 100%, and it is entirely rational to question their accuracy.)<BR/><BR/>So I will return to one of my original points. The publishers of the Bible - even the Christian publishers - don't assert that the author of the Bible is "God". Many of the separate books of the Bible don't assert that the author of that book is "God". There is no external authority (as far as I'm aware) that confirms that the author of the Bible is "God".<BR/><BR/>So how exactly does your argument differ from the one that you referred to as the "stock caricature" of the Christian position?uAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-45811801102094742872007-09-11T09:04:00.000-04:002007-09-11T09:04:00.000-04:00BILLY SAID:“I fail to see how you are answering me...BILLY SAID:<BR/><BR/>“I fail to see how you are answering me "on my own grounds". At no point did I say that it is irrational to believe that Hemingway wrote A Farewell To Arms simply because it says so on the book cover. This is something that you said in your response to my initial comment, and it is an incorrect characterisation of my position.”<BR/><BR/>You admitted that, from your viewpoint, it would be viciously “circular if you are simply holding up your copy of the book and pointing to the cover.”<BR/><BR/>So are you now saying that a viciously argument is a rational argument?<BR/><BR/>“My position is as follows: your friend would be justified in asking how you know that A Farewell To Arms was in fact written by Ernest Hemingway. The cover of the book may say so, but the cover of ‘The Running Man’ says that it was written by Richard Bachman - when it was in fact written by Stephen King.”<BR/><BR/>Which, as I pointed out before, involves the distinction between knowledge and prima facie justification. <BR/><BR/>“It is entirely rational to believe that Hemingway wrote A Farewell to Arms because it says so on the book cover. It is also entirely rational to question whether Hemingway did in fact write A Farewell to Arms, since your friend didn't see him writing it.”<BR/><BR/>No, you’re acting as if all probabilities were equiprobable. The fact that we could possible be mistaken about something doesn’t mean that a posture of Cartesian doubt or default scepticism is just as rationale as qualified belief. No one lives that way because no one is able to live that way.<BR/><BR/>“The question then is, what else can your friend refer to in order to increase his/her confidence in the authorship of A Farewell to Arms? Not the text itself, but other sources, which might be primary sources (the original manuscript, Hemingway memooirs talking about writing the book, reports by friends or colleagues, etc) or secondary sources (academic analysis of the text or history of the text, etc) or even tertiary sources (Library of Congress, etc). This does not in any sense constitute a ‘vicious regress’ - it is standard historical practice.”<BR/><BR/>I don’t object to the history practice. It’s your preliminary scepticism that undermines the historical practice. If you make it a point to automatically question testimony, then all you’re doing here is to add one questionable witness to another.<BR/><BR/>“I know, and I am not in this case questioning the historicity of Scripture. The historicity of Scripture, however, does not have much to do with whether the Bible is the Word of God.”<BR/><BR/>In various respects, it has a lot to do with it, but to confine ourselves to the immediate subject of this thread, it corroborates the attestation of authorship.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37315574852971279812007-09-09T13:38:00.000-04:002007-09-09T13:38:00.000-04:00Billy,You said, "It is entirely rational to believ...Billy,<BR/><BR/>You said, "It is entirely rational to believe that Hemingway wrote A Farewell to Arms because it says so on the book cover. It is also entirely rational to question whether Hemingway did in fact write A Farewell to Arms, since your friend didn't see him writing it."<BR/><BR/>So basically, you're trying to make the point that divine self-ascription is not sufficient reason to believe that a document is inspired by God?Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-32332411269808427552007-09-08T10:09:00.000-04:002007-09-08T10:09:00.000-04:00"I'm merely answering you on your own grounds. Whe..."I'm merely answering you on your own grounds. When you say it's irrational to believe that Hemingway wrote A Farewell To Arms simply because it says so on the book cover, you are treating testimony as inherently dubious."<BR/><BR/>I fail to see how you are answering me "on my own grounds". At no point did I say that it is irrational to believe that Hemingway wrote A Farewell To Arms simply because it says so on the book cover. This is something that you said in your response to my initial comment, and it is an incorrect characterisation of my position.<BR/><BR/>My position is as follows: your friend would be justified in asking how you know that A Farewell To Arms was in fact written by Ernest Hemingway. The cover of the book may say so, but the cover of "The Running Man" says that it was written by Richard Bachman - when it was in fact written by Stephen King.<BR/><BR/>"To then appeal to additional testimony to substantiate the original testimonial claim is viciously regressive."<BR/><BR/>It is entirely rational to believe that Hemingway wrote A Farewell to Arms because it says so on the book cover. It is also entirely rational to question whether Hemingway did in fact write A Farewell to Arms, since your friend didn't see him writing it.<BR/><BR/>The question then is, what else can your friend refer to in order to increase his/her confidence in the authorship of A Farewell to Arms? Not the text itself, but other sources, which might be primary sources (the original manuscript, Hemingway memooirs talking about writing the book, reports by friends or colleagues, etc) or secondary sources (academic analysis of the text or history of the text, etc) or even tertiary sources (Library of Congress, etc). This does not in any sense constitute a "vicious regress" - it is standard historical practice.<BR/><BR/>"Oh, and there's tons of Evangelical scholarship amassing evidence for the historicity of Scripture."<BR/><BR/>I know, and I am not in this case questioning the historicity of Scripture. The historicity of Scripture, however, does not have much to do with whether the Bible is the Word of God. Such an argument merely establishes that the Bible is a useful historical document - just as with Tacitus and Josephus.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-24771496661633811992007-09-08T08:33:00.000-04:002007-09-08T08:33:00.000-04:00Billy said:"Your argument is fallacious; secondary...Billy said:<BR/><BR/>"Your argument is fallacious; secondary sources are entirely acceptable in building a case for authorship, and don't constitute a 'vicious regress'."<BR/><BR/>I'm merely answering you on your own grounds. When you say it's irrational to believe that Hemingway wrote A Farewell To Arms simply because it says so on the book cover, you are treating testimony as inherently dubious. <BR/><BR/>To then appeal to additional testimony to substantiate the original testimonial claim is viciously regressive.<BR/><BR/>Corroborative testimony is only valid if you accept the prima facie credibility of testimony in the first place. <BR/><BR/>Oh, and there's tons of Evangelical scholarship amassing evidence for the historicity of Scripture.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-80030625149603199022007-09-08T04:51:00.000-04:002007-09-08T04:51:00.000-04:00"If you push this too far, it will push you into a..."If you push this too far, it will push you into a vicious regress, for you continue to rely on second-hand testimony every step of the way."<BR/><BR/>Your argument is fallacious; secondary sources are entirely acceptable in building a case for authorship, and don't constitute a "vicious regress".<BR/><BR/>If you want to develop your argument in that direction, then I can develop a parallel argument based on corroborative evidence for Scripture.<BR/><BR/>This is fascinating stuff - please do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1386546983996371572007-09-07T19:20:00.000-04:002007-09-07T19:20:00.000-04:00BILLY SAID:“Yes, it would. I'm assuming that by "i...BILLY SAID:<BR/><BR/>“Yes, it would. I'm assuming that by "it", you mean the book that I'm holding at present; if that's the case, I don't think Hemingway wrote a Farewell to Arms ‘because it says so’. The book is just an artefact; it would still be the same text even without any details about the author, and the name of the author is not integral to the text.”<BR/><BR/>Whether the author’s name is “integral to the text” is irrelevant to the question of whether I am prima facie justified in believing the ascription absent evidence to the contrary.<BR/><BR/>“At root, the reason that I think that Hemingway wrote A Farewell to Arms is because of the quite large amount of supporting evidence. There are books and other literary works which have less supporting evidence - for example, the plays of Shakespeare - but in the main historical and literary analysis demonstrates that this is the case.”<BR/><BR/>If you want to develop your argument in that direction, then I can develop a parallel argument based on corroborative evidence for Scripture.<BR/><BR/>“No I wouldn't, as can be demonstrated easily by positing that a text that has no author details.”<BR/><BR/>How is that supposed to be analogous? If a text is anonymous, then absent addition information, I have no opinion regarding authorship. That is hardly analogous to a text that is not anonymous. <BR/><BR/>“The proof would be the supporting evidence referred to earlier.”<BR/><BR/>If you push this too far, it will push you into a vicious regress, for you continue to rely on second-hand testimony every step of the way.<BR/><BR/>“It is circular if you are simply holding up your copy of the book and pointing to the cover. Your friend would be perfectly justified in asking how you know the cover is correct in ascribing authorship to Hemingway; and exactly the same argument can be extended to the Bible.”<BR/><BR/>No, he would not be justified. That would be a case of irrational scepticism. Indeed, feigning disbelief.<BR/><BR/>One of your problems is that you fail to distinguish between knowledge and justified belief. Is my belief in other minds, the external world, and the reality of the past unwarranted unless I can provide an apodictic proof for these beliefs? No.<BR/><BR/>There are degrees of belief, ranging along of relative continuum of certainty or uncertainty. A belief can be mistaken and justified at the same time.<BR/><BR/>“The difference is that in the case of the authorship of A Farewell to Arms, there is a large amount of evidence that can be used to support the ascription, but in the case of the authorship of the Bible, there is absolutely none.”<BR/><BR/>Now you’re exhibiting your ignorance. What evangelical scholars have you studied on the subject?<BR/><BR/>“Yes, but that's because the publisher is not the text of the book, or the copy of the book itself; the publishing company is a separate source of evidence in itself.”<BR/><BR/>Once again, if you wish to develop your argument in that direction, then I can develop a parallel argument for the Bible. There are many levels of attestation.<BR/><BR/>“You will notice that in book catalogues, the author of the Bible is not listed as ‘God’; that's partly because publishers - even Christian publishers - cannot in good faith ascribe authorship to ‘God’.”<BR/><BR/>Are you trying to be sophistical?stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-52648869541544789412007-09-07T14:24:00.000-04:002007-09-07T14:24:00.000-04:00"Instead of the Bible, let’s construct a parallel ..."Instead of the Bible, let’s construct a parallel argument: Who wrote A Farewell to Arms? Earnest Hemingway. Why do you think Hemingway wrote A Farewell to Arms? Because it says so. Would that be an example of sloppy reasoning? No."<BR/><BR/>Yes, it would. I'm assuming that by "it", you mean the book that I'm holding at present; if that's the case, I don't think Hemingway wrote a Farewell to Arms "because it says so". The book is just an artefact; it would still be the same text even without any details about the author, and the name of the author is not integral to the text.<BR/><BR/>At root, the reason that I think that Hemingway wrote A Farewell to Arms is because of the quite large amount of supporting evidence. There are books and other literary works which have less supporting evidence - for example, the plays of Shakespeare - but in the main historical and literary analysis demonstrates that this is the case.<BR/><BR/>"If you were reading A Farewell to Arms, and a friend asked you who wrote it, you would say Earnest Hemingway. And if your friend asked you how you knew that, you would show him your copy of the book, which says that Hemingway was the author."<BR/><BR/>No I wouldn't, as can be demonstrated easily by positing that a text that has no author details. The proof would be the supporting evidence referred to earlier.<BR/><BR/>"Is it viciously circular to appeal to the title itself? No."<BR/><BR/>It is circular if you are simply holding up your copy of the book and pointing to the cover. Your friend would be perfectly justified in asking how you know the cover is correct in ascribing authorship to Hemingway; and exactly the same argument can be extended to the Bible. The difference is that in the case of the authorship of A Farewell to Arms, there is a large amount of evidence that can be used to support the ascription, but in the case of the authorship of the Bible, there is absolutely none.<BR/><BR/>"Of course, this is not a compelling argument for authorship. It’s possible that the conventional attribution is false. But if the publisher gives Hemingway as the author, that is prima facie grounds for believing that Hemingway is the author, is it not?"<BR/><BR/>Yes, but that's because the publisher is not the text of the book, or the copy of the book itself; the publishing company is a separate source of evidence in itself. You will notice that in book catalogues, the author of the Bible is not listed as "God"; that's partly because publishers - even Christian publishers - cannot in good faith ascribe authorship to "God".<BR/><BR/>"That, all by itself, is evidence for the authorship of the novel, and you wouldn’t have any reason to question that attribution unless you had evidence to the contrary."<BR/><BR/>On this we can agree, but only if you accept the arguments above.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63277907973799359142007-09-05T19:40:00.000-04:002007-09-05T19:40:00.000-04:00Good point.Good point.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76371167737701733272007-09-05T18:13:00.000-04:002007-09-05T18:13:00.000-04:00Fair enough, Tim.I should say, though, that Joseph...Fair enough, Tim.<BR/><BR/>I should say, though, that Joseph cast it in such stark, black-and-white terms ("forced to choose between...") that I was only taking him at his word and giving him as much wiggle room as he seemed to allow himself to have.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-76492325857060182322007-09-05T17:46:00.000-04:002007-09-05T17:46:00.000-04:00Patrick: Reading blogs on breaks is easy. Brief c...Patrick: Reading blogs on breaks is easy. Brief comments are easy. I've done it myself. Any kind of thorough interaction is harder.<BR/><BR/>"Goodness, Tim", you may ask, "why are you defending him?" I might answer, "Pragmatically, if you give someone something easy to respond to, it gives them an excuse to avoid addressing more substantive points. More generally, I don't like unfair arguments, period."Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79402351582079910822007-09-05T17:17:00.000-04:002007-09-05T17:17:00.000-04:00Joseph said:No. Actually, the only computer access...Joseph said:<BR/><BR/><B>No. Actually, the only computer access I have is at work. Forced to choose between earning a living and debating with you Steve Hays cheerleaders, I'll opt for the former. In case you didn't catch it, I tried to apologize to Steve for not being more candid from the get-go.</B><BR/><BR/>I'll just note that if Joseph truly is "[f]orced to choose between earning a living and debating with you Steve Hays cheerleaders," then I wonder how he finds the time to keep reading and commenting in the combox? Just a thought.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31590501249305670282007-09-05T15:28:00.000-04:002007-09-05T15:28:00.000-04:00Eh? You tried to apologize for not being more can...Eh? You tried to apologize for not being more candid? Are you referring to the first sentence in your other comment? "...I would have been a lot more careful..." It's the only thing I can see in your first comment that seems to match.<BR/><BR/>Joseph, I have a difficult time recognizing an apology in there. That sentence started off with "had I known that you had a complex that motivates you to attempt to thrash every comment in every combox on every Catholic or Orthodox blog". Is that apologetic, in your mind? To me, it seems more defensive, with a bit of lashing out. I don't know, I can't read your mind. But I can tell you that if you're ever interested in making a genuine apology, you can't start off that way. (Imagine saying something similar to introduce an apology to your wife!)<BR/><BR/>So, if you were intending a genuine apology, the way you went about it shrouded it in fog.<BR/><BR/>As for your computer situation: I'll say again that you're the steward of your own time, and I for one am not going to hold it against you if you don't respond. Particularly if it's an issue of not having computer access except at work.<BR/><BR/>The problem is not in what you didn't say, but in what you did say. You did not bow out humbly; you bowed out with a parting shot, and with a half-hearted attempt to defend yourself by saying you've actually defended the position Steve is arguing. And as I pointed out, it's rather difficult to reconcile such a claim with your prior strong assertion that <I>everyone</I> you've <I>ever</I> seen <I>actually</I> defend Steve's position does it in the way you were "trotting out".<BR/><BR/>Quite simply, that's beyond belief. I simply can't understand was actually going on inside your head, unless you (1) really thought that was standard Protestant methodology and were unfamiliar with Steve's arguments, or (2) were intentionally misrepresenting Protestant methodology.<BR/><BR/>I <I>think</I> I'm being reasonable. You may disagree. Now, you're welcome to try to clear it up, if you care to. If you have time. Or you can leave it muddled as it is. I'm just saying that it <I>is</I> in quite a muddle of your own making.Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79787165643300707932007-09-05T14:51:00.000-04:002007-09-05T14:51:00.000-04:00No. Actually, the only computer access I have is a...No. Actually, the only computer access I have is at work. Forced to choose between earning a living and debating with you Steve Hays cheerleaders, I'll opt for the former. In case you didn't catch it, I tried to apologize to Steve for not being more candid from the get-go.Joseph Schmitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03840363740618795570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-80545033422167256672007-09-05T14:12:00.000-04:002007-09-05T14:12:00.000-04:00I think we may be giving Joseph too much credit he...I think we may be giving Joseph too much credit here. By failing to engage a single one of Steve's points, it's evident he's lost the debate and is making a beeline for the exit. That's why he's responded the way he has.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37493859133021464562007-09-05T13:22:00.000-04:002007-09-05T13:22:00.000-04:00Joseph:Strange. I found Steve's post to be intere...Joseph:<BR/><BR/>Strange. I found Steve's post to be interesting, informative, and edifying. Almost as though he responded to your comment because he thought the opportunity to address these issues would be edifying to his readers.<BR/><BR/>So it's beyond me to figure out what would motivate you to this kind of pseudo-psychoanalysis.<BR/><BR/>Well, it's not really beyond me. It made a good emotional dismissal, without requiring any sort of substance. (Your lack of free time to seriously engage his post is understandable; you are the steward of your own time.)<BR/><BR/>The problem is, you said something terribly ignorant: "how everyone I've ever heard defend your position has actually done so." I've seen many people who really do think that's what we argue--they really are that unfamiliar with the issues. You said it as though you meant it--intensifying it three times! (everyone, ever, actually) OK, so you say that it was extremely tongue-in-cheek. That you aren't really ignorant of Protestant methodology--you've studied it and you even used to argue it.<BR/><BR/>Then I would <I>love</I> to see you explain what you did mean by your "tongue-in-cheek" comment that you apparently knew wasn't true. That when you used to argue "Steve's position", you argued it the way you were caricaturing? That you used to argue it the way Steve just did, but you decided to say that you'd never encountered such arguments to, uh, make a point? What point?<BR/><BR/>I'm honestly having a hard time seeing how you weren't either speaking from ignorance, or lying. Could you enlighten us?Jugulumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09932658890162312549noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-57440180300703619792007-09-05T13:08:00.000-04:002007-09-05T13:08:00.000-04:00Joseph said:---As for my ineptitude and ignorance ...Joseph said:<BR/>---<BR/>As for my ineptitude and ignorance of protestant methodology, I assure you that I have done my fair share of reading and even defended the position you hold for a number of years.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>I, for one, would be more "assured" of the above were your responses actually "careful" or "serious" instead of "extremely tongue-in-cheek." In other words, you can say that you used to hold Protestant views, but when you do not even bother to present them accurately how can we rely on your assurance?Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26072894544759661732007-09-05T13:00:00.000-04:002007-09-05T13:00:00.000-04:00Mathetes said...Are there any good resources you c...Mathetes said...<BR/>Are there any good resources you could recommend on the stepwise argument you mentioned in 4.ii? It sounds intriguing.<BR/><BR/>*******************<BR/><BR/>Here's an example:<BR/><BR/>http://garyhabermas.com/articles/areopagus_jesusinspirationscripture/areopagus_jesusinspirationscripture.htmstevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-50664214505879568262007-09-05T12:39:00.000-04:002007-09-05T12:39:00.000-04:00Steve, With all due respect, had I known that you ...Steve, <BR/><BR/>With all due respect, had I known that you had a complex that motivates you to attempt to thrash every comment in every combox on every Catholic or Orthodox blog, I would have been a lot more careful in my criticism, maybe even serious. My comments were meant to be extremely tongue-in-cheek. As for my ineptitude and ignorance of protestant methodology, I assure you that I have done my fair share of reading and even defended the position you hold for a number of years. To be honest, I do not have the free time that you obviously do to seriously engage your post at the moment, and I suspect that any attempt to do so will not bear any more fruit than your exchanges as of late. With that, I humbly bow out. <BR/><BR/>JosephJoseph Schmitthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03840363740618795570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48205116419151240862007-09-05T12:26:00.000-04:002007-09-05T12:26:00.000-04:00Well done!Well done!Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-84561688525756501502007-09-05T11:56:00.000-04:002007-09-05T11:56:00.000-04:00Are there any good resources you could recommend o...Are there any good resources you could recommend on the stepwise argument you mentioned in 4.ii? It sounds intriguing.Matheteshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13527032591499860552noreply@blogger.com