I have little respect for would-be internet apologists who don't have the courage to write under their real names, but some fellow named "Mediocre Man" has been polluting the Feedback section of this this forum with nonsense so illogical that I felt that it deserved a reply lest some Bible believers who read his messages think that they cannot be satisfactorily answered. In "'Mediocre Man' Is a Misnomer," I replied to his longest message point by point to show that he does nothing except string logical fallacies together, especially argumentations by assertion, question begging, and special pleading. In the final paragraph of this reply, I made the following concluding comments about MM's "apologetic methods."
Anyway, we have now seen that MM's post was completely devoid of substance. He filled it with arguments by assertion, question begging, and special pleading, but he was unable to support them with solid evidence. In other words, MM is a pretty typical Bible believer.
Well, MM is back again with more of the same in his Feedback article linked to in the title above. I am going to dismantle it piece by piece, as I did to his other article, to show that he has given us nothing but more of the same, i. e., argumentation by assertion, question begging, and special pleading. If after this reply is posted, MM cannot come back with logical arguments to support his belief that the Bible "contains God's word," he will have to be satisfied with space available to him in the Feedback section, because I won't dignify his sermonizing by putting it in the article section, which receives the most attention from readers.
As always, I will use MM and Till headers to help readers follow who is saying what.
MM:
I read your [Till's] critique, "Mediocre
Man" Is a Misnomer [sic] (posted April 26,
2005 on your "Articles" page) and it was what I expected
Till:
That makes us even, because MM's "reply" was what I expected from him
too, just more logical
fallacies strung together.
MM:
-- another Typical Till hatchet piece.
Till:
Well, if MM would just put some logic into his articles, they wouldn't
be such easy prey for
my hatchet.
MM:
However, I was somewhat surprised to see the degree to which you were
willing to use deception
in your many asides to manipulate your readers as you moved through
your "analysis." For
instance, in one aside you state
Till:
What a refreshing change! MM is finally going to explain an abstraction
with a specific
example (for instance).
MM:
"... I [Till] will say here that I certainly don't claim that there is
no truth at all in the
Bible. I recognize that there is some truth...." But then later you
state, "... the truth is
that the Bible is in no sense the 'word of God' and in no sense
'contains the word of God.'
Till:
My, my, MM is so logically challenged that he apparently doesn't know
that "truth" is not the
same as "the word of God." There can be truth in a document or book
without its being "the
word of God." There is "truth," for example, in the book of Mormon.
First
Nephi
1:13 referred to the destruction of Jerusalem and the taking of its
inhabitants into
Babylonian captivity, which is also a biblical claim
(2 Kings
24:10-17), that has
been corroborated by extrabiblical records, such as the
Babylonian
Chronicle, but I am sure that MM would not claim that some truth in
the Book of Mormon
means that it is "the word of God." In case he is a Mormon, who would
claim that this book
does "contain God's word," I will ask him to tell us if some truth in
the Qur'an or the Hindu
Bhagavad-Gita or the Zoroastrian Avesta would prove that they are also
the "words of God."
If I said that the Declaration of Independence contains "some truth" but that it "in no sense contains the word of God," would MM consider this a contradictory position to take?
Why is it that Bible believers are so often incapable of logical reasoning?
MM:
It is a collection of ancient supersititions...." Beside the fact that
the latter quote is
your own assertion without supporting evidence,
Till:
Oh, does MM want specific proof that the Bible is a collection of
superstitions? If so, all
he has to do is read my articles, and he will find plenty of examples,
but to accommodate him,
I will give some examples here.
I could give many other examples, but these are sufficient to show that I was fully justified in saying that ancient superstitions are collected in biblical writings. If MM wants to defend any of these as scientifically efficacious, he can be my guest.
MM:
for these two statements to be consistent you are in effect saying that
for some statement in
the Bible to be true it "in no sense" can be related to "the word of
God,"
Till:
Well, I showed above that the presence of truth in documents does not
mean that those
documents are "the inspired word of God." If MM wants to argue
otherwise, let him present
his case.
MM:
but must therefore be an "ancient superstition."
Till:
Now when did I ever say this? I have said only that the presence of
truth in the Bible or
any other document does not make it "the word of God," and that is so
obviously true that I
can't understand why MM can't see it. Furthermore, I have never said
and would never say that
an "untruth" in a document makes the untrue statement an ancient
superstition. If a document
said that Thomas Jefferson was the first president of the United
States, that would be an
untrue statement, but the untruth of the statement would not make it an
ancient
superstition. It would simply be a discrepancy in the document.
I do wish that MM could think logically.
MM:
By this criterion, then how could anything about God that is found in
the Bible ever be
acceptable as valid supporting evidence for the proposition that the
Bible contains God's
word?
Till:
Well, it couldn't. If MM or anyone else tries to prove the existence of
"God," whatever that
is, by saying that the Bible says that "God" exists, that would be the
fallacy of special
pleading, which occurs when one applies principles, rules, or
standards--in this case--to the
Bible that he is not willing to apply to all other books. Would MM, for
example, be willing
to agree that the Hindu god Vishnu exists because the Bhagavad-Gita
says that he does? Would
he be willing to agree that the Zoroastrian god Ahura Mazda exists
because the Avesta says
that he does? Would he be willing to accept as "valid supporting
evidence" that these books
contain the "word" of their respective gods, because these books
indicate that they do?
Why can't people like MM think logically?
MM:
By default you end the discussion before it begins because you in
effect are saying that you
will not accept as valid any evidence that supports the Bible as
containing God's word if
that evidence is derived from Biblical statements.
Till:
Well, I will just dump this "argument" right back into MM's lap. By
default, he ends the
discussion before it begins because he, in effect, is saying that he
will not accept as valid
any evidence that supports the Avesta [Qur'an, Bhagavad-Gita, etc.] as
containing the word
of Ahura Mazda [Allah, Vishnu] if that evidence is derived from
statements in the Avesta
[Qur'an, Bhagavad-Gita].
I have said before that MM--like so many of his Christian cohorts--just can't see the truth in the logical axiom that says what proves too much proves nothing at all. If what MM says to try to prove that the Bible is the "word of God" could be adapted to Qur'anic apologetics by just substituting Allah for God and Qur'an for Bible, then obviously that argument proves nothing at all.
Will MM ever be able to see this?
MM:
By this sort of preselection you will never be able to form any
hypothesis whatsoever about
God that would permit testing that hypothesis for its validity.
Till:
Sure, we could. All MM would have to do is present his hypothesis that
this thing he calls
"God" exists and then test it with supporting evidence that doesn't
rely on just argumentation
by assertion, question begging, or special pleading. I invite him to
present that hypothesis
and then defend it by logical argumentation rather than the stringing
together of logical
fallacies, which is all that he has done so far. I will even suggest a
starting point for
him. If he is a typical Christian theist, he sees this thing that he
calls "God" as an
immaterial, invisible entity that exists separate and apart from
matter, "outside of time and
space," so I challenge him to show us, without engaging in
argumentation by assertion, question
begging, or special pleading, that it is at all possible for
immaterial, invisible entities,
such as gods, spirits, demons, and so on to exist independently of
matter.
MM:
This "stacking the deck" is an example of using your religious paradigm
to filter your
perception of reality to the point that what you expect to see is all
that you actually do
see
Till:
This is rather ludicrous coming from MM, because if anyone filters his
"perception of reality
to the point that what [he] expect[s] to see is all that [he] actually
do[es] see," that
would be MM, because practically everything that he has written in the
Feedback section has
been filtered through his "perception" that the Bible is the "word of
God." He has yet to
post anything that even remotes resembles a logical argument that would
prove his perception
to be true.
I realize, of course, that he is unable to realize this, but I am sure that many who come to the Feedback section will have no problem at all seeing it.
MM:
(as I explained in the Feedback reply to your alter ego, Wayne, on Thu
Apr 21 '05 in "Re 5:
The
Big Talkers Have Run for the Hills").
Till
I have put a link to MM's "Feedback reply" so that readers can see for
themselves that it is
nothing more than the same old argumentation by assertion, question
begging, and special
pleading. In this post, he was replying to someone called "Wayne," and
MM recycled the same
old charges: Wayne seems to have hostility toward Christianity
and the Judeo-Christian God. This is the familiar "angry-with-God"
complaint that we see so often from Bible believers.
If anyone dares to question their "God" or the truth of the Bible, then
he/she is angry with
God, as if it is impossible for anyone to question the claims of
Christianity without being
angry with God. Of course, if MM or any of his cohorts should state the
reasons why they
can't believe in Islam, they aren't angry with Allah; they are
just raising sensible questions about the claims of that religion.
MM went on to tell "Wayne" that he "could attain a more balanced perspective if [he] could develop a love for truth--and then pursue truth in depth." In other words, MM just begged the question of whether the "truth" is to be found in the Bible. He wants to assume that whatever that Bible says is true and then proceed from there. Expecting this guy ever to reason logically would be like expecting a chimpanzee to develop into an accomplished ballet dancer.
MM:
Amazing!
Till:
Yes, it is amazing that MM just cannot see that he is the one "stacking
the deck" in that he
expects everyone to assume without question that his beliefs about
"God" and the Bible are
true. How could anyone be as logically challenged as he has shown
himself to be in his posts
on the Feedback section.
MM:
And you consider this form of reasoning to be rational?
Till:
Well, I have never reasoned in the way that MM has tried to distort my
arguments. I think
that asking for supporting evidence that doesn't depend on
argumentation by assertion,
question begging, or special pleading is entirely rational, but we have
seen that MM is
incapable of satsifying my request for logical argumentation.
MM:
But of course you do--you use your religious paradigm to justify it!
Till:
Look who is talking! From the time that he began posting here he has
used his "religious
paradigm," i. e., the Bible contains the word of God, to argue
that he knows that
"God" exists and that the Bible is his "word," because the Bible says
so.
MM:
Consider your following statements:
Spewing out nonsense like this... will accomplish nothing with rational people who want to hear solid evidence and not what MM may think or believe about the Bible.
Till:
Well, why don't I just fill in the dots where MM put the ellipsis, so
that readers can see the
full context of what I said. I was commenting on MM's quotation of 1
Timothy 2:5, which says,
"There is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus
Christ." He had quoted
this to "prove" a prior assertion that "(t)he purpose of the Scriptures
that have been
preserved in the Bible is to bring us to the Messiah, so that through
him we might become
acceptable to God." In other words, MM had asserted that we [humans]
can become acceptable
to God through Jesus, and his proof of this was his special-pleading
quotation of 1 Timothy
2:5. In reply to this I said the following.
How does MM know that this is a true statement? He has said that the Bible is not "the word of God" but just contains the word of God, so how does he know that 1 Timothy 2:5 is a part of the "word of God"? "Christ Jesus" is a "mediator between God and men"? How does MM know this? Once again, he is engaging in question begging and special pleading. Spewing out nonsense like this may work in pulpits where the pews are filled with those already inclined to believe that the Bible "contains the word of God," but it will accomplish nothing with rational people who want to hear solid evidence and not what MM may think or believe about the Bible.
I put the part that MM quoted in bold print so that everyone can see the relevance of what he left out. MM talked about my "hatchet job" on his article, but he has done a cutting and snipping job on this paragraph that distorted completely what I was saying. I will ask him now to answer my questions and tell us how he knows that 1 Timothy 2:5 made a true statement when it said that there is "one God" and that Jesus is the "one mediator" between God and man. We want solid evidence and not just his belief that this has to be a true statement because it is in the Bible. There is nothing at all unreasonable or illogical about that request.
MM: [distorting Till again]:
...rational people want to see solid evidence.
Till:
Well, is MM going to argue that rational people shouldn't want to see
solid evidence before they accept an extraordinary claim? If not, then
by what standard can they be considered rational?
Let's also look at this truncated quotation in its full context.
This is more argumentation by assertion. If MM were engaged in a discussion with a Muslim, how impressed would he be if his opponent said, "The end result of that journey of discovering the Truth is Islam"? If MM is going to engage in religious forensics, he needs to understand, as I said above, that rational people want to see solid evidence. They are not interested in hearing what religious adherents think or believe.
There is my statement in its full context, with MM's truncated quotation from it in bold print, so I will ask him to tell us, in specific terms, what is irrational about what I said here. Is it MM's position that rational people shouldn't want to see solid evidence when a religionist like a Muslim tries to prove his religion by just quoting from his holy book?
MM: [distorting Till again]:
Why, then, can't he [M] see that the rants about Jesus Christ, the truth of Christianity, and "the word of God" are to rational people like sounding brass and clanging symbols?
Till:
Here is the full context of this quotation.
Everything that he has said in his post that I am now replying to could easily be converted into an Islamic apology by simplying changing terms like Bible to Qur'an, Christianity to Islam, Jesus Christ to Muhammad, God to Allah, etc. If these conversions were made and MM's own post were submitted to him adapted to promote Islam and the Qur'an with the same assertions and special pleadings, he wouldn't be at all impressed to read a Muslim's claim that Islam is the "truth" or that the Qur'an contains the word of Allah. Why, then, can't he see that the rants about Jesus Christ, the truth of Christianity, and "the word of God" are to rational people like sounding brass and clanging symbols? In other words, if by just changing certain terminology in his post, MM's own assertions can be taken and used to claim that truth exists in other religions, what value do they have? MM apparently has not yet come to understand the logical axiom that says what proves too much proves proves nothing at all. I urge him either to give us sound, rational evidence to prove the "truth of Christianity" or else stop wasting our time with unsupported assertions, begged questions, and special pleadings.
What MM quoted from this paragraph was a perfectly legitimate question, which I am now going to ask him again to answer. If MM would not be impressed with a Muslim who quoted the Qur'an to try to prove his Islamic claims, then why does he expect us to accept his beliefs when he offers nothing to prove them except what the Bible says. I also asked MM to explain to us why his "arguments" should be considered rational when any of them could be converted into Islamic arguments by just changing certain terms (Jesus to Muhammad, Bible to Qur'an, God to Allah, etc.). What is illogical about these questions, and why won't he answer them?
MM: [distorting Till again]
I [Till] urge him either to give us sound, rational evidence to prove the "truth of Christianity" or else stop wasting our time with unsupported assertions, begged questions, and special pleadings.
Till:
This statement is the last sentence in what I quoted above, so readers
have its full context.
All I need to do now is ask MM what is wrong with urging a debating
opponent to give sound,
rational evidence rather than unsupported assertions, begged questions,
and special pleadings?
MM must have been trying to drag out the length of his message here so
that those who looked
only superficially at it would think that he had actually said
something.
MM: [distorting Till again]
...what is in the Bible was so colored and influenced by ancient superstitions that rational people would never believe that it contains "the word of God."
Till:
Here is my complete statement
I agree that the Bible isn't all mythology. Some of it is legend, some of it is fictionalized history, and some of it is actual history. In the main, however, what is in the Bible was so colored and influenced by ancient superstitions that rational people would never believe that it contains "the word of God."
I showed above that ancient superstitions influenced the Bible, so I don't need to say any more about that until MM shows us--shows us and just doesn't assert it--that these were not superstitions. As for fictionalized history, even orthodox Jews are beginning to recognize that much of their history was fictionalized. If MM wants to defend the historical accuracy of the Bible and do so with logical argumentation rather than logical fallacies, I will be glad to show reasons why so many now think that much of the Old Testament was fictionalized to give the Israelites a glorious history.
MM: [distorting Till again]
...I [Till] say that the Bible is riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, discrepancies, failed prophecies, and such like that will prevent any rational person from believing that it was "inspired" by an omniscient, omnipotent deity.
Till:
I present my body of articles here and in The Skeptical Review, which
can be
accessed on the Secular
Web, as evidence that the Bible is indeed riddled with
errors of the nature mentioned
in my quotation above.
MM:
By these statements you are in effect defining for your readers what is
and what is not
"rational."
Till:
No, I am making a claim that has been adequately supported by the body
of my work mentioned
above. If MM disagrees, I challenge him to select one of my articles in
this forum, which
delineated a biblical discrepancy, and show us that the discrepancy
identified is not really
a discrepancy.
MM:
And what, one might ask, is the opposite of "rational" in your
religious paradigm?
Till:
The English prefix ir- gives the word it is attached to the opposite
meaning of the root
word. Hence, irregular means the opposite of regular, irreligious means
the opposite of religious, irreconcilable means the opposite of
reconcilable,
irrelevant means the opposite of relevant, and so on, so I will leave
it to him to guess what is the opposite of rational.
MM:
You define "irrationality" as:
...there are millions of believers in biblical superstitions.... there are a lot of irrational people in the world....
Till:
No, that wasn't a definition of irrational, it was just an appropriate
usage of the word to describe the millions who believe in biblical
superstitions. A look at the statement within its context will show
that it was just a proper usage of the word to describe the mental
state of those who believe in biblical superstitions. I will highlight
his truncated part of the statement in bold print and fill in his
ellipses with the parts that he left out.
MM said that "(t)hose who have developed a love of the truth" are not threatened by those who find discrepancies in the Bible. Well, I am sure that there are millions of believers in biblical superstitions who would not be threatened by even a million examples of biblical discrepancies, but the only thing that proves is that there are a lot of irrational people in the world (especially in this country).
Now, if that is that an incorrect statement, MM should show us why it is. If I had said that people who believe that a rabbit's foot will bring good luck or that breaking a mirror will bring seven years bad luck are irrational, would MM dispute that? If so, why? If not, why not? My position is simply that belief in superstitions is irrational, so if I am wrong in saying that, MM should show us why such beliefs should be considered rational.
MM:
Thus, you define the Bible to be a "collection of ancient
superstitions" and those who
believe what the Bible says about God to be "irrational."
Till:
Yes, I do, so now let MM explain to us what is rational about believing
the ancient
superstitions that I identified above and what is rational about
believing that there was a
time when a god named Yahweh routinely dropped in to chat with people
like Abraham, Jacob,
Moses, Joshua, David, etc., etc., etc. Let him explain to us what is
rational about believing
that a snake once talked to a woman and that a donkey once talked to a
man named Balaam. Let
him explain what is rational about--well, I don't really need to drag
this out further. My
point has been made very clearly.
MM:
Till:
No, not all of them, because I have explained that there is some truth
in the Bible.
Extrabiblical documents, for example, have confirmed that
Nebuchadnezzar's army destroyed
Jerusalem and took many of the Judeans into captivity, and other
records have corrobated
the historicity of characters like Jehu, Ahab, king Mesha of Moab, king
Cyrus of Persia, and
so on. The fact that some truth is in the Bible, however, does not
prove that everything in
it is true. That is the mistake that people like MM make. They conclude
too much from
the discovery of extrabiblical records that corroborate some
information in the Bible.
Before I leave this point, another comment is in order. All corrobative discoveries in extrabiblical records have corroborated only the ordinary, and none of them has corroborated the extraordinary or miraculous. In other words, there have been no extrabiblical corroboration of biblical claims that a snake talked to Eve, a donkey talked to Balaam, the Red Sea parted for the Israelites to cross on dry land, three men--Shadrach, Meshack, and Abednego--survived being thrown into a furnace so hot that the heat killed the men who threw them in, and so on. It is rather strange that nothing like these events have ever been corroborated by extrabiblical discoveries.
MM:
However, there's a hitch in this type of "rationality"--
Till:
I can't wait to read what it is.
MM:
it all rests on the proposition that the Bible is a "collection of
superstitions."
Till:
That's a hitch? Is it a hitch to say that believing that a man named
Jacob caused spotted
and speckled lambs to be born in the way mentioned above is irrational,
or believing that
the "trial by ordeal" mentioned above could determine guilt or
innocence is irrational, or
believing that a snake talked to a woman in a human voice is
irrational, or believing that
as donkey talked to a man in a human voice is irrational, and so on? If
this is a hitch,
I defy MM to show us--without resorting to argumentation by assertion
or question begging or
special pleading--exactly why it is rational to believe that such tales
as these are
historically accurate.
MM:
By your own admission the Bible does contain "some truth";
Till:
Yes, I have said this, but I have also pointed out that some truth in
the Bible doesn't mean
that everything in it is true. That's a point that MM can't seem to
grasp. If I said that I
think that there is some truth in the Qur'an, that would not mean that
I was saying that the
Qur'an is Allah's word.
MM:
so its contents cannot all be superstitions.
Till:
I have never said that all of the Bible's contents are superstitions.
If I have, let MM quote
where I said it.
MM:
Therefore, to play your "unsupported assertions, begged questions, and
special pleadings"
game, by what criterion do you distinguish superstition from the "word
of God"?
Till:
I have very amply supported in my body of works referred to above that
the Bible is riddled
with discrepancies; therefore, I do not argue this as an unsupported
assertion. If I have
begged a question--and I don't doubt--that somewhere in all of my
articles, I surely have at
times begged questions, if MM will point one out, I will state my
reasons for believing them.
The difference in him and me is that I have repeatedly pointed out his
begged questions, but
he just keeps rehashing them with the same old attempts to support them
with logical fallacies. Special pleading? I have no idea where MM
thinks that I have done this, but if he will cite the examples, I will
support them with evidence too.
Before answering MM's question, I must point out that he is begging the question again. In asking how I distinguish superstition from the "word of God," he begs the question of whether such an entity as "God" exists and the question of whether this "God," if he does exist, has revealed a book that MM calls "the word of God." He has yet to prove either one or even to offer reasonable evidence of either. As for the criterion that can be used to determine superstition, if there is no evidence at all to support beliefs that walking under a ladder or having a black cat cross one's path or breaking a mirror will cause bad luck, one can write them off as superstitions that have no basis in fact. I urge MM to get a rabbit's foot, rub it, and then buy a lottery ticket to see if rubbing the rabbit's foot brought him good luck.
I would also like for MM to present evidence that putting peeled poplar rods in front of breeding sheep will cause them to produce spotted or speckled offspring. There is simply no evidence that even remotely suggests that snakes and donkeys have ever talked in human languages; hence, a rational person will simply see these as ancient superstitions until he has seen evidence to the contrary. If MM has any such evidence, let him show it to us.
MM:
To be objective you would have to permit the possibility that the "word
of God" exists in
contradistinction to superstition,
Till:
Well, possibilities are one thing but evidence to support those
possibilities is another
thing, and I have yet to see anything from MM that even remotely
resembles reasonable
evidence that the Bible is the "word of God." Why doesn't he make
things a lot easier for
us--and him--by just presenting that evidence? I am going to ask him to
imagine that a
Muslim has approached him with the intention of proving that the Qur'an
is the word of Allah
and then to think about what kind of evidence he would demand of this
Muslim before he could
even consider believing his claim. After he has done that, he can then
present to us the
same standard of evidence in support of the Bible that he theoretically
asked of the Muslim.
Will he do this? Will pigs fly someday?
MM:
if only to identify it sufficiently to reject its inclusion in the
"some truth" category
which you admit exists in the Bible;
Till:
Well, I have given specific examples above of biblical content that I
accept as truth and
why. The "why" of that acceptance is the simple fact that extrabiblical
records, written independently of the Bible, mentioned certain
characters like Nebuchadnezzar, Jehu, Cyrus, Ahab, and so on, and that
extrabiblical records also mentioned such events as the Babylonian
destruction of Jerusalem and the battle between the Moabites and the
Israelites in
2 Kings
3:21-27, so we have
some independent corroboration of these claims, which gives us reason
to assume their
historicity.
Now why doesn't MM give us some extrabiblical sources that corroborate extraordinary biblical claims like those I listed above?
MM:
or else your evidence would be biased and insufficient to justify your
claim that
the Bible,
Till:
MM has the gall to talk about biased evidence. He has nothing but
biased evidence,
i. e., what the Bible says, to support his claim that the Bible
"contains the word of
God." I cited a few examples above of extrabiblical records that
corroborate some biblical
claims. In giving these examples, I was not saying the the
extrabiblical corroboration
confirms the historicity of those examples, because it is possible for
both the Bible and
the extrabiblical records to be wrong, but the existence of the
extrabiblical corroboration
gives more reason to believe them than just the Bible alone. MM has
nothing but the Bible alone to offer as "proof" of claims that are
emotionally important to him, such as the virgin
birth of Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, the creation of the
universe, etc. In that sense,
he has no more evidence that his holy book is divine in its origin than
a Zoroastrian has for the divine origin of the Avesta.
MM:
as being a "collection of superstitions," somehow omits the "word of
God" from those of its
pages that contain "some truth."
Till:
Can MM really be this dense? How can he not see that the presence of
truth in some documents
does not make them the word of God." Written documents could be
completely inerrant, but the
absence of errors in those documents would not prove them to be "the
word of God." Until MM
or some other Bible believer can present reasonable evidence that the
Bible is the so-called
"word of God," he will still be begging a question that has not been
proven.
MM:
Yet according to your religious paradigm, the possibility that the
"word of God" is, in fact,
in the Bible is, by definition, logically invalid and therefore
irrational.
Till:
Say what? If anyone understands what MM meant here, please pass it
along to be. If he is
saying that I think it is logically irrational to accept even the
possibility that the "word
of God" is in the Bible, he isn't far from the truth. The fact that the
Bible contains so
many discrepancies, inconsistencies, contradictions, failed prophecies,
and such like makes it
so unlikely that it is the "word" of an omniscient, omnipotent deity
that even the possibility
of its being such is all but eliminated.
If I missed what MM meant, he will need to explain himself better.
MM:
So if you do not have a rational basis by which to distinguish between
superstition and the
"word of God," then by what logic did you arrive at your contention
that "... the Bible was
so colored and influenced by ancient superstitions that rational people
would never believe
that it contains 'the word of God.'"
Till:
I have explained above what my rational basis is for concluding that
many of the tales in the
Bible are ancient superstitions. When MM addresses them with logical
attempts to rebut them,
I will gladly reply, but I don't intend to waste my time answering
another post like this one,
which contains only logical fallacies strung together. If MM can
explain to us the logic in
believing that an omnscient, omnipotent deity routinely dropped by in
ancient times to visit
and chat with people, as the Bible claims that Yahweh did, but no
longer does so, I will
certainly be willing to reconsider my position that these are just
fanciful yarns that were
spun by superstitious people living in superstitious times. If he can
explain to us the logic
in believing that animals once talked in human languages but no longer
do so, I will again be
willing to reconsider my position. If he can explain to us the logic in
believing that
miracles like the parting of the Red Sea, resurrections from the dead,
survival of being cast
into a fiery furnance, walking on water, and such like happened in the
past but no longer
happen, I will again be willing to reconsider my position. If MM
doesn't get the point of
what I am saying, he needs someone else besides me to try to help him.
In "Traditional Biblical Inerrancy - Part Three," I showed that if one is going to claim that the Bible was "inspired" by an omniscient, omnipotent deity, logic would necessitate his/her also believing that the Bible is inerrant. Since I have shown in my articles here and on the secular web, linked to above, that there are numerous errors in the Bible, I have a very rational reason for saying that rational people cannot believe that the Bible is "the word of God." When MM shows that the errors that I have identified in my articles aren't really errors, we will have something to talk about, but we have nothing more to talk about as long as he can do no more than argue that the Bible is the inspired word of God because it says that it is.
MM:
Your atheistic religion does not permit the possibility that God or His
word even exist;
Till:
Atheism, as I define it, does not declare that the existence of God is
impossible; it merely
says that I can see no good reason to believe that "God" does exist. If
MM knows of a good
reason to believe in this entity, by all means, let him post it here.
Anyway, his comment
here tells me that he isn't paying attention, because I made it clear
in my first reply to
him that atheism is not a religion and that atheism as I define it does
not affirm the
negative proposition that God does not exist. After he had
accused me of preaching
my own religious fundamentalism, I said the following.
What does MM mean here? It is hard to determine, because he continues to spew abstractions that mean nothing until they are clarified with specific, concrete language. If he is trying to recycle that worn-out saw about atheism being a religion, then I suggest that he consult a dictionary to see what the word religion means. My atheism is simply a recognition or admission that there is insufficient evidence to believe in gods or other invisible entities, and that will not fit into the standard definition of religion. It seems that MM recognizes that he can't defend his religious beliefs, and so, like so many other religionists who have been unable to meet challenges to defend their religions, he desperately tries to make the challengers to his beliefs also believers in religion.
That is clear enough that MM should understand it after having had it run by him twice. If he wants to talk about atheism, I have no objections, but I won't let him attribute to me beliefs that I don't have.
MM:
so anything related to "God" must therefore, by default, be a
superstition.
Till:
It should be unless the proponent of the "God" concept can present
reasonable evidence to
support the claim. MM certainly hasn't done that. I challenged him
above to show us
reasonable evidence that it is even possible for invisible, immaterial
entities like gods,
spirits, demons, and so on to exist independently of matter. If he can
present such evidence,
I will certainly consider it, but if he can't, I will continue to think
that "God" talk is
just irrational superstition.
MM:
This type of fallacious argument is called "affirming the consequent,"
Till:
It is? How did MM get that? Let's consider a real case of affirming the
consequent
illustrated in the following example.
Anyone should see the flaw in this argument. I can be in Illinois, as I now am, without being in Chicago. I could be in Peoria, Moline, Springfield, Canton, or any number of other towns and cities in Illinois, without being in Chicago. This, then, is what the fallacy of affirming the consequent is, so just where have I ever presented any argument like this? I have read through his claim that I am affirming the consequent of an argument, but I can't for the life of me see how he gets this. I think he has imagined in his mind an argument that I never made, so I will give him a little help by stating my argument for myself.
This is my argument, and the body of my work, which I have referred to several times now, has been designed to show that the Bible is errant. Hence, I am not affirming a consequent; I am properly affirming the antecedent (the Bible is errant).
MM:
and inferences based on such reasoning comprise a form of non-sequitur
[sic].
Till:
I can't very well answer unexplained abstrations. What inferences have
I based on "such
reasoning"? If MM will lay them before us, I will gladly address them.
MM:
So, Mr. Till, the reason you are unable to logically infer truth
concerning the objective
existence of the "word of God" in the Bible is because your religious
paradigm defines
a priori what is to be acceptable as valid evidence.
Till:
MM is again begging the question of whether "the word of God" is in the
Bible. I will point
this out and then go on to his a priori accusation. He is the one with
the a priori problem, because he has repeatedly declared without
evidence, which is an a priori error in reasoning, that "God" exists
and that the Bible is this god's "word." The fact is that I have not
defined what is to be acceptable as "valid evidence" beyond saying that
fallacies like unsupported assetions, begged questions, and special
pleadings cannot be accepted as logical evidence. These fallacies are
so firmly established in logic that I didn't consider it necessary to
discuss at length why they are unacceptable as "valid evidence."
If one will read carefully my replies to MM, he/she should see that I have indirectly explained why such fallacies as these are unacceptable as evidence, because I have repeatedly taken MM's fallacies and adapted them to other religions like Islam, Hinduism, Mormonism, and Zoroastrianism by just changing the religious terminology in them. If he can grasp why a Muslim proves nothing when he tries to support an argument by saying, "The Qur'an says," then MM should be able to understand why his saying, "The Bible says," doesn't prove anything either. If he can understand why a mere assertion that the Qur'an is "Allah's word" doesn't make it so, then he should also be able to understand why all of his repeated assertions that the Bible "contains the word of God" don't make that so either.
If MM can't see this, then he should seek professional help.
MM:
In short, in "stacking the deck" to define the term "rational" in a way
intended to justify
your religious paradigm to your readers you filter-out the possibility
that your religious
paradigm could be false if the hypothesis, "the Bible contains the
'word of God'," is found
to be true.
Till:
Well, I will just dump this clumsily stated "argument" back into MM's
lap. In "stacking the
deck" by constantly throwing around the unsupported assertion that the
Bible "contains the word of God" in a way to justify his religious
paradigm to his readers--if he can find any irrational enough to accept
it uncritically--MM filters out the possibility that his religious
paradigm, i. e., the Bible contains the word of God, could be false if
the hypothesis that the Bible is riddled with errors, discrepancies,
inconsistencies, and such like is found to be true.
Now if MM has a logical argument to support his premise that the Bible "contains the word of God," let him present it and stop trying to make us think that he is an expert in logic, because clearly he isn't.
MM:
It is something of an irony, then, that you ask for evidence which you
have eliminated, a
priori, from consideration.
Till:
I haven't eliminated anything a priori. I have simply shown that MM is
trying to
prove his position with logical fallacies rather than acceptable
evidence. If I wanted to
waste my time doing so, I could write an article in defense of the
Bible that would present
some logical arguments that have been presented by biblical apologists.
When I was a preacher,
I would use some of them myself, so I know that such arguments exist.
MM simply isn't
using them, probably because he doesn't know them. If he will check my
article
"Traditional
Biblical Inerrancy - Part Three," he will see that I agreed with
the
fundamentalist position that
inspiration by an omniscient, omnipotent deity would necessitate
biblical inerrancy, and I
presented logical arguments for why that would have to be true. If he
reads this article,
maybe he can find some tips on how to delineate logical arguments
rather than simply
stringing together unsupported assertions and begged questions.
MM:
So how (as Mr. Till asked repeatedly) can one determine the truth of
the premise, "the Bible
contains the 'word of God'"? Well, the answer is so easy even a child
can do it. You test it
and prove it by putting it into application. In other words, the proof
of the pudding
is in the eating.
Till:
I always heard it another way: "The proof of the plum is in the
pudding." For a while, I was excited, because I thought what MM said
above signaled that he was finally going to present some arguments to
support his claim that the Bible contains "the word of God," but, alas,
as I read on, I saw that he didn't, as readers will now see too.
MM:
But, uh oh, it's in the Bible, and so it might be false.
Till:
I hope that MM isn't insinuating that if it is in the Bible it can't
be false, so now
is a good time to ask him to clarify himself. I will put the question
in bold print so that
it will be hard for him to miss it. Is it at all possible that
something in the Bible
isn't true?
Oh, I forgot; MM has said that the Bible isn't the word of God but just contains the word of God, so I will rephrase the question. Is it at all possible that nothing in the Bible is the word of God?
MM:
So don't try anything irrational. Yeah, but it might not be false.
Till:
Well, haven't I said that some truth is in the Bible, and haven't I
explained why we can know
that these things are true? Anyway, MM just left himself open again, so
I will ask a variation of the question above. Is it at all possible
that the Bible does not contain the word of God but only that people
who wrote the Bible thought that they were writing the words of God?
If not, why not?
MM:
So until you actually put it to the test you'll never know.
Till:
And just when is MM going to put "it" to the test. I haven't seen him
put anything to the
test yet.
MM:
Pretty risky stuff to those accustomed to thinking in terms of
religious stereotypes, huh?
Till:
Does MM consider this putting "it" to the test? He probably does.
MM:
So test the "word of God" by applying it in your experience, just don't
sit there talking
about it.
Till:
Well, don't just sit there, MM. Show us how to do this test. Exactly
how do we "test" the
Bible by applying it to our experience? If a Muslim told MM to test the
Qur'an by applying
it to his experience, would MM say, "Well, of course, why didn't I
think of that"?
As I have said so many times now, MM just can't seem to grasp the axiom that says what proves too much proves nothing at all.
MM:
Consider Hebrews 11:6 once more:
But apart from faith it is impossible to please God. For it behooves him who approaches God to believe that God exists; and that for those who seek Him out He becomes a rewarder.
Till:
Now I will ask MM to show us--show us, not just tell us--how he
knows that this
statement is a part of the "word of God." He has said that the Bible is
not the word of God
but that it just "contains the word of God," so how does he know that
Hebrews 11:6 is a part
of the "word of God"? How does he know that it is a true statement?
This poor guy just can't tell when he is engaging in special pleading. If a Muslim should tell MM to consider a certain text in the Qur'an, would he throw his hands up and yell, "Hallelujah, hallelujah, I have finally seen the light"?
Let me say it again for MM's benefit and hope that it sinks in this time: What proves too much proves nothing at all.
MM:
That is an active doing, not a passive "show me, show me" pleading.
Till:
No, that is question begging and special pleading.
How does MM know that the text that he quoted stated a truth? How does he know that the way to "God" is not in the Qur'an or the Avesta rather than the Bible?
MM:
But if you wish to prove the "word of God" you must first believe that
God exists.
Till:
If a Zoroastrian said to MM, "If you wish to prove the word of Ahura
Mazda, you must first
believe that Ahura Mazda exists," how impressed would MM be? This poor
guy just can see at
all that an assertion or begged question that could be adapted to Islam
or Zoroastrianism or
Hinduism, etc., by just changing religious terms in it is a worthless
argument that proves
nothing at all.
MM:
Ah, that's the rub to the atheist.
Till:
And suppose that the Hindu who said to MM that if he wished to prove
the word of Vishnu, he
must first believe that Vishnu exists, and then went on to say, "Ah,
that's the rub to the
non-Hindu," how impressed would MM be?
What proves too much, MM, proves nothing at all. Please sit for a moment and try to let that sink in.
MM:
The atheist, you see, wants to have his cake and eat it too.
Till:
I think that MM meant to say that the atheist wants to eat his cake and
have it too; he has the verbs reversed. Anyway, the atheist
wants no such thing; the atheist just wants to see reasonable
evidence that the Bible "contains the word of God," just as MM in a
discussion with a Mormon would surely want to see reasonable evidence
that the Book of Mormon contains the word of God.
I wonder if MM would be able to see the sun if he looked up on a clear day?
MM:
The atheist wants to be shown some impersonal magical formula so that
he might passively plug
in some special quantities and, POOF! out pops a proof of God, or of
Jesus, or a miracle, or
whatever other "superstitious" thing in which the atheist doesn't
desire to believe.
Till:
No, the atheist just wants to be shown reasonable evidence that this
god Yahweh really does
exist, and the atheist doesn't think that it is at all unreasonable to
demand such evidence
as this from a god who routinely appeared to biblical characters and
performed all kinds of
wonders in their presence. Are we today not as important as they were
back then, or could it
just be that we today are a bit more enlightened than they were back
then, and so we no longer
swallow myths and legends hook, line, and sinker?
As for MM's comment about what "the atheist doesn't desire to believe," I will remind him that I attended two Bible colleges and spent 12 years preaching, five of which were spent in a foreign mission field. I wanted to believe, but I just reached a point where I had learned far too much about the Bible to keep believing it. So MM can't lecture me on what I don't desire to believe.
MM:
Then upon seeing his formulaic proof from a safe distance, the atheist
just might, but only
just might, stick a toe in the pool of personal experience--
Till:
Well, I have yet to see any "forulaic proof" from any distance. Why
doesn't MM just show us
some? As for the "pool of personal experience," this is just more of
MM's fallacious
reasoning. He apparently doesn't know that anecdotal "evidence" proves
absolutely nothing,
because Muslims can stick their toes into their pools of personal
experience and come up with
proof to satisfy them that theirs is the true religion, and Hindus, and
Mormons, and
Zoroastrians can do the same. I keep hoping that MM just might stumble
onto a logical
argument to show us, but this is apparently a vain hope.
MM:
but not before seeing the proof first, no definitely not before that.
Till:
That is the sensible route that any rational person would take. Would
MM accept Islam before
he sees the proof first? Hinduism? Zoroastrianism? Mormonism?
Will MM ever recognize that assertions that can be adapted to any religion by just changing the religious terminology in them prove absolutely nothing?
MM:
Being convinced a thing is true before actually seeing it would be
irrational, you see.
Till:
So tell us, MM, would you be convinced that Islam is true before
actually seeing that it is?
If not, why not? Answer that question, and you just may begin to
understand why I or any
other rational skeptic will not accept Christianity as "truth" until we
actually see evidence
that it is.
MM:
So the atheist is stuck in his circular religious paradigm playing the
waiting game,
complaining that there's no proof, when the proof God gives is only a
first believing step
away.
Till:
Those who are familiar with my posts in internet forums know that I
often refer to a fictional
Muslim friend to let him answer an opponent's "argument," so I am going
to let Yusef Amasaali
reply to the comment that MM just made.
Yusef Amasaali
So the Christian is stuck in his circular religious paradigm playing
the waiting game,
complaining that there's no proof of Islam, when the proof Allah gives
is only a first
believing step away.
Till:
Will MM ever come to understand the axiom that says what proves too
much proves nothing at
all?
Will pigs fly someday?
MM:
But to become unstuck you must believe that God exists to perform His
word to the one
seeking Him.
Yusef Amasaali
But to become unstuck you must believe that Allah exists to perform His
word to the one
seeking him.
Till:
Will MM ever come to understand the axiom that says what proves too
much proves nothing at
all?
MM:
Otherwise, the truth of God's word will always be in doubt as being
just a theory.
Yusef Amasaali:
Oherwise, the truth of Allah's word will always be in doubt as being
just a theoy.
Till:
We have come this far, and MM can still do nothing but argue by
assertion and question
begging? Is the Bible "the truth of God's word"? That is a question
that MM needs to prove,
but he hasn't even tried to. He thinks that he can impress us with
sermonettes filled with
logical fallacies.
MM:
So do you see now why the atheist is always at square one? -- he
refuses to take the first
step!
Yusef Amasaali
So do you see now why the non-Muslim is always at square one? -- he
refuses to take the first
step!
Till:
Biblical skeptics and atheists have taken many steps beyond square one.
They have stepped
far enough to know that claims of "God's" existence and the Bible's
"truth" cannot be proven
by assertions. They can be proven only by evidence, and since Bible
believers always remain
at square one and talk in circles about "God" and "his word," they
never move far enough
along to present any kind of reasonable evidence to support their
claims. That is probably
because they have no reasonable evidence to present.
Now here is a comment that I am making to MM, who is just another would-be apologist too cowardly even to use his name or e-mail address. I have spent an entire day replying to this chain of unsupported assertions, begged questions, and special pleadings. Either answer my rebuttal points in detail, as I have answered your sermonizing, or else go somewhere else and waste someone else's time. If your next post is just more of the same, I will reply to it by just linking readers to this and my first reply to you.
You are a pathetic excuse for a biblical
apologist, MM. If you really want to impress
readers here, cease your sermonizing and try to answer arguments.
