Is the modern view called “inerrancy” really the view of the Bible that orthodox Christians have always held?

Prompted by some recent (but, I think, quite wrong) criticisms of my stance as a conservative Christian who doesn’t accept the belief that the Bible must be seen as inerrant, I’ve been reflecting over the last couple of days on the fact that – as with other doctrines – plenty of evangelicals today assume that since they believe something and so does everyone they associate with, this must be the “orthodox” view, and it must belong to all orthodox Christians in history. Some evangelicals, understandably keen to trace key elements of their own theology back throughout church history, have claimed that their doctrine of inerrancy has uniformly been taught by conservative Christians of all ages.

Read More

A while back I wrote a blog post pointing out that I don’t hold to an inerrantist view of the Bible. I do not accept that beloved doctrine held by many other evangelicals, biblical inerrancy. It isn’t biblical, it isn’t required, and it is, at times, just implausible.

Bnonn over at Thinking Matters doesn’t think much of the position I expressed. Apparently my comments are “theologically inept” and “culturally prejudiced.” I think Bnonn is simply wrong about this, and I also think that it might have been prudent to ask me what my case against inerrancy was before railing against it (as I said at the time, I offered only scant comments, and had I actually been trying o make the case against inerrancy I would have said more), but do head over to check his post out, where you’ll see my comments on it as well.

Unfortunately he actually oversteps the mark and misrepresents me, saying that I personally believe that the Bible may contain “fraud” or “deceit,” but I realise that it’s hard for those with a strong committment to inerrancy to imagine a Bible that is neither inerrant nor fraudulent and worthless. The fact is, I do not countenance a fraudulent or deceitful Bible at all. All I postulate is that the message of God was delivered by imperfect people (not fraudsters or liars). It’s nothing shocking, really.

Glenn Peoples

I’m going to start by painting pictures of two viewpoints. It might not be clear at first why I’m doing it, but just stay with me, all will be explained shortly.

Moral Relativism

On the one hand imagine a group of people who are moral relativists. Moral relativism is the view that there are no transcendant moral facts, but only relative moral perspectives. Regardless of one’s view of morality, pretty much everyone believes that a plurality of moral perspectives exist. This is just to say that not everyone agrees on moral issues – hardly a controversial observation. Different individuals and different cultural groupings hold different beliefs about morality. But moral relativists go much further than this simple factual observation. Moral relativists believe that this diversity of moral beliefs is reflective of the fact that there are really no universal moral facts. People hold different perspectives on morality, and those perspectives are all equally correct.

Relativism can be subdivided into two basic kinds: Subjectivism and conventionalism. Subjectivism is an individualistic take on relativism, where every individual person determines their own morality. Not only does a person decide what they believe about morality (a phenomenon that we all observe), but a person literally determines what is morally right for them. The boundary of moral truth is the individual. What is really moral within those boundaries depends on that individual, and is not binding on anyone beyond that boundary. You might hear overtones of subjectivism from people whether they have actually decided on subjectivism or not; “Abortion: maybe not right for you, but right for me!” “Don’t impose your moral views on other people, each person has to decide what’s right for them.” “If you think that your morals are right and mine are wrong, then you’re just being narrow minded.” You get the idea.

Conventionalism is more of a “group think” approach to relativism. Here, morality is the custom, consensus, or collective opinion of a group – perhaps a cultural category, tribal group, society, or some other kind of cluster of multiple people. In conventionalist relativism moral values are determined by one’s group, and what is deemed right really is morally right for that group, even if not for others. Different cultures will therefore have different moral codes, and what makes this a relativist approach is the further claim that none of these moral codes can truly be said to be morally better than any other, since there is no morality that stands over and above all different cultures. If I were a conventionalist, while I might not personally like Sharia law, female circumcision or honour killings, I would have no way of claiming that there was anything morally wrong with it, since it is acceptable to those cultures that practice it, and morality is constructed by cultures. As soon as I make the claim that other cultures ought not do those things or that they should conform to the values cherished by my culture, I have overstepped the mark, and I am no longer acting like a relativist.

The opposite of moral relativism is moral “objectivism” or moral “absolutism.” It’s the view that there really are moral facts – claims that are absolutely true, whether we follow them or not. Moral facts, being facts and not conventions, transcend individuals and cultures, much like, say, laws of science. I think that relativism is an absurd position to take, and it is no accident that moral philosophers have no time for it. It’s no accident that, as Chris Goawns noted, moral relativism has the rather undesirable distinction among ethical viewpoints “of being attributed to others, almost always as a criticism, far more often than it is explicitly professed by anyone” (see the “Moral relativism” link above). However, this blog entry is not intended as a critique of relativism, so I will not introduce reasons why I think it is wrong. The first thing I have set out to do is to paint a brief and accurate picture of what moral relativism is.

Human Rights

OK, that picture is painted. As promised, here is the second picture I want to paint. Imagine a group of people who are… there’s probably a really good one-word noun for it, but I can’t think of one off the top of my head, but we’ll call them people-who-believe-in-human-rights (I’d use the term “humanitarians,” but that’s a little broader than just a concern for rights). According to these people, everyone, everywhere, in all nations and cultures – all people – have some basic rights. These rights are basic things in that they’re fundamental. Human rights are not the product of human laws. In fact, these people say, it’s quite possible to have a collection of laws that are fundamentally wrong because they are contrary to human rights. Perhaps those laws deny people the right to freedom of speech or religion. Those laws might deny women to show their face in public. Perhaps those laws forbid journalists to publish anything that is unsupportive of the government. According to these advocates of basic human rights, there would be something terribly morally wrong with these laws, whether the laws were passed here in New Zealand, in Australia, in Japan, in Afghanistan – anywhere in the world. Rights are things that ought to be left alone so that people can enjoy them, and to do otherwise is wrong, whoever you may be. I’m not going to paint a picture that is so detailed that it requires you to imagine each and every one of the rights that these people believe in, for now it is enough just to say that they believe that there are some human rights of an unspecified number.

OK, the pictures have been painted. Now comes the claim that I want people to accept: These two pictures exclude one another. You cannot consistently think of yourself as belonging in both of these groups of people at the same time. You might believe in human rights, or you might be a moral relativist (or perhaps neither of these things apply to you), but you cannot consistently be a moral relativist and a believer in human rights.

Read More

... still wrong

Recently I wrote a blog entry called “Einstein v the Church v Galileo?” Without reproducing the whole thing, here’s basically what I said: There was once a view that empty space contains stuff – “ether,” a view that there was an absolute backdrop to space against which all motion in the universe could be measured.

Then making one of my central claims, I noted that the dispute highlighted in the notorious Galileo affair – whether the earth moves around the sun or the sun moves around the earth, really only makes sense when we presuppose this “fixed backdrop” view of motion in space.

Next, I drew support for this claim from Albert Einstein. As has been summarised, “Prior to the generation of Einstein’s theory of special relativity, physicists had understood motion to occur against a backdrop of absolute rest (the “ether”), with this backdrop acting as a reference point for all motion. In dismissing the concept of this backdrop, Einstein called for a reconsideration of all motion. According to his theory, all motion is relative and every concept that incorporates space and time must be considered in relative terms. This means that there is no constant point of reference against which to measure motion. Measurement of motion is never absolute, but relative to a given position in space and time.”

I then applied this summary to Galileo’s claim about the earth and the sun. His view had been it was an objective fact that the earth travelled around the sun, and that it was objectively false (i.e. false from all observational perspectives) that the sun moves around the earth. The above summary of Einstein’s theory (or part thereof) means rejecting this pair of claims. It also means rejecting the reverse claims (that it’s objectively true that the sun moves around the earth, and objectively false that it does not). What it does is that it relativises both positions, thus denying that either position is objectively correct. From the earth’s perspective, the sun is correctly observed to move around the earth. From the sun’s perspective, the earth is correctly observed to move around the sun.

The upshot of this is that in making his claim, which he meant to be an objective claim while rejecting another view as objectively false, Galileo was wrong. Although I was challenged by a visitor who claimed that the above is not connected to Einstein’s theory of special relativity, and that Einstein’s theory, as far as he was aware, was never applied to the question of the earth moving around the sun or vice versa, the fact is, as I found more and more to be true the further I looked, is that the above description of motion in space really is associated with Einstein’s theory by scientists, and it really is appealed to in discussions about the earth and the sun.

The reality, of course, is that it really wouldn’t matter if this perspective on Galileo can be connected to Einstein or not (even though it looks like plenty of people do make this connection). This perspective on Galileo is the subject, and it can be analysed and discussed irrespective of how it connects to other theories.

So in short, my claim was as follows: What would be observed if the earth moved around the sun is actually “observationally identical” to what would be observed if the sun moved around the earth. The facts that we actually see in the universe can be correctly described either way.

In future, rather than repeat this, I will just refer to this position as “my claim.” My claim refers to two ideas: that of the earth moving around the sun, which I will call view a), and that of the sun moving around the earth, which I will call b).

Read More

There are Christians in the world who sincerely believe that if only Christianity would be come more liberal and “with the times,” renouncing traditional and unpopular doctrines and practices, it would gain more respect for its “relevance.” They are wrong, plain and simple. For a skeptic to observe a religion that holds beliefs that he regards as false, that’s one thing.  For a sceptic to observe a religious person who wants to keep his name tag so that it can have continuity with a historical movement, but who is frankly so embarrassed by what it teaches that he wants to water it down, hide less acceptable aspects of it, change some bits to try and make it look more palatable to those who reject it outright, end up with something that the sceptic still thinks isn’t really true, but now thinking that it’s going to look better to an unbelieving world because it’s relevant – that’s a spectacle of a whole other kind (and not in a good way).

I make no secret of my Protestantism, and my grounds for being one are very conservative and old fashioned. But this I know: Whatever additional theological baggage you might think the Catholic church may have taken on board over the years, they are pretty faithful when it comes to not jettisoning beliefs just because they aren’t popular. There’s something basically respectable there: No BS, you accept the faith or you don’t, but it aint changing to suit you. As numerous Christian movements go the way of trying to change in the mistaken belief that it will help their survival, disillusioned members of those movements may quite understandably look to Catholicism for a contrast.

The Pope knows this. He, like plenty of other Catholics, Anglicans, and Christians in general, knows that Anglicanism isn’t what it used to be. The current Archbishop of Canterbury, along with numerous changes (or perhaps reductions) in belief and practice in recent decades, are testimony to a liberal shift in a movement that is experimenting with survival tactics. Individual congregations do provide welcome exceptions, yes, and I don’t want to overlook that. But an an official level, it aint pretty. This is an opportunity for Catholicism, and they aren’t missing it.

The Church of England may see a “flood” of traditionalist members moving to the Roman Catholic Church following an offer by Pope Benedict XVI to welcome Anglican priests and worshippers, a religious group said.

The Vatican said yesterday it has set up a special structure to integrate Anglicans and enable the faith’s married priests to become Catholic clerics.

“It could well be a flood, provided the terms and conditions are favorable,” said Stephen Parkinson, director of the Anglican traditionalist group Forward in Faith. As many as 1,000 priests could convert, he said today in a telephone interview. “We haven’t seen the fine print yet.”

The offer may be the most important step toward unity between the two churches since they split in 1534 over Pope Clement VII’s refusal to grant King Henry VIII an annulment to his marriage. Traditionalist Anglicans have threatened to quit their church over the ordination of female bishops and acceptance of homosexual bishops and same-sex unions.

The Vatican’s new structure for Anglicans, dubbed “personal ordinariates,” would allow married Anglican clergymen to be ordained as Catholic priests, though not as bishops.

SOURCE

It’s not only a very smart move, but also one that will improve the priesthood by reintroducing the existence of married priests (the unwarranted prohibition on marriage among priests has, I am certain, contributed to way too many scandals in the church). It’s not a change in policy on clerical marriage, but it’s a start.

It’s official. Se the Vatican’s statement HERE.

(See also the discussion on this over at Being Frank.)

Glenn Peoples

This guy was wrong.

Once upon a time, physicists considered all motion to take place against a fixed backdrop – call it what you will, but “ether” seems to be a popular term. Thinking about physical objects and their movement in this way, plenty of people believed that there was an absolute reference point for motion. For example, if two spheres (call them A and B) became closer together, then it means that A moved closer to B while B remained still, or B moved closer to A while A remained still, or as a third possibility, that A and B both moved against the backdrop of “ether” like floating balls on the surface of a swimming pool, closer together.

Because of this way of thinking, Galileo found himself in a real pickle with the church when he expounded on his theory of planetary motion. He contended that – as objective fact – the earth travels around the Sun, whereas members of the clergy contended that – as objective fact – the sun travels around the earth. The conflict between Galileo and the church is often retold, frequently for the sake of demonstrating some inexorable conflict between science and religion, and always told as a reminder of how the church got it wrong, and Galileo got it right.

As a Christian and also as a person who didn’t want to offend Catholic rulers, Galileo was in a bit of a quandry. In the Bible, in Joshua chapter 10, a miracle occurs where the sun stands still, making the day longer. Yet according to Galileo, the sun didn’t even travel around the earth, so it would be the earth, rather than the sun, which would need to stand still in order to make a day longer.

Galileo’s solution was as follows:

[A]lthough Scripture can indeed not err, nevertheless some of its interpreters and expositors may sometimes err in various ways, one of which may be very serious and quite frequent, [that is,] when they would base themselves always on the literal meaning of words. For in that way there would appear to be [in the Bible] not only various contradictions, but even grave heresies and blasphemies, since it would be necessary to give God feet and hands and eyes, and no less corporeal and human feelings, like wrath, regret, and hatred, or sometimes even forgetfulness of things gone by and ignorance of the future. Hence, just as in the Scriptures are founf many propositions which, as to the bare senses of the words, have an appearance different from the truth, but were so put to accommodate the incapacity of the common people, so, for those few who deserve to be separated from the herd, it is necessary that wise expositors should produce the true senses and give particular reasons why they were offered in those words.

[Letter of 21 December, 1613 to Benedetto Castelli, in S. Drake, Letter to Castelli, in Galileo at Work: His Scientific Biography, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978, 224)

Galileo went on to say that in disputes about complex scientific matters that are far from the biblical message of salvation, we should look to science to give us the literal truth of the matter, because, as he says above, Scripture is often much less than literal in such things, so as to be easily received by simple folk.

The point I want to drive home is that Galileo clearly thought that the view held by those clergy who opposed him (namely that the sun travels around the earth) was literally false, and that his view (that the earth travels around the sun) was literally true.

Had there been no advances in physics over the last couple of centuries, I would have to agree with Galileo. Because there have been major advances in physics over that time, I cannot. Galileo was wrong. He was excusably wrong because of the time in which he lived, but he was wrong nonetheless. It will be at once obvious that the position of both Galileo and his clerical dissenters takes for granted the view of motion that I outlined at the start of this article: All motion has a fixed reference point; it happens against a backdrop against which it can be objectively measured. This view is no longer a tenable one, largely thanks to the work of Albert Einstein on special relativity. Without going into mind numbing detail, here’s a simple summary:

In formulating his theory, Einstein dismissed the concept of the “ether,” and with it the “idea of absolute rest.” Prior to the generation of Einstein’s theory of special relativity, physicists had understood motion to occur against a backdrop of absolute rest (the “ether”), with this backdrop acting as a reference point for all motion. In dismissing the concept of this backdrop, Einstein called for a reconsideration of all motion. According to his theory, all motion is relative and every concept that incorporates space and time must be considered in relative terms. This means that there is no constant point of reference against which to measure motion. Measurement of motion is never absolute, but relative to a given position in space and time. Returning to Galileo’s cannonball, Einstein considered this: the cannonball falling from the mast of the ship would appear to an observer standing on the deck of that ship as though it dropped straight down; however, to an observer standing on the shore, the cannonball would appear to follow a curved trajectory on its way to the base of the mast. Which trajectory did the ball actually follow? According to Einstein’s theory of special relativity, the answer is, both—and neither. Each observer’s observation is valid in its own reference frame, yet each is no more than an artifact of the measurement, or observation, undertaken by the observer.

SOURCE

[added comment: Click the link to read more, but the above description applies generally to all space, to the “ether” theory, and hence has application to all motion that occurs in space, notwithstanding any more specialised focus within the theory of special relativity.]

This new (well, new at the time, anyway) view of physics reduces Galileo’s claim about which view is literally correct, his or the church’s, to rubble. If Einstein is correct, then Galileo was wrong to say that it is objectively true that the earth moves around the sun, and that it is objectively false that the sun moves around the earth. Which – if either – of those to claims is correct depends wholly on the observational perspective. An observer on the earth will correctly report that the sun travels around the earth (or stated differently, relative to the earth, the sun travels around it), and a sun dweller (!!!) will correctly report that the earth travels around the sun. Neither is incorrect, but if one accuses the other of being objectively mistaken while he himself is objectively correct, he is simply wrong (as was Galileo). This is not a defence of the Church’s claim, as obviously the principle applies to both views equally.

All this changes, of course, if there is a priveleged point from which the sun-earth relationshiop is supposed to be viewed from. Should there exist such a designated “viewing platform,” the question could be settled once and for all. If, for example, it turned out that the earth is the priveleged spot from which the relationship is meant to be observed, then the church was right all along, and a hack job has been done on the Galileo trial.

So go ahead – keep using the Galileo case to show what silly scientific conclusions theologians come to – that is, if you’re happy to push your view of physics back half a century.

EDIT: See part two HERE.

A recent study conducted by researchers at the University of Otago has found that there exists a demonstrable connection between having an abortion and later suffering some sort of mental illness.

The report concluded: “This evidence raises important questions about the practice of justifying termination of pregnancy on the grounds that this procedure will reduce risks of mental health problems in women having unwanted pregnancy.

“Currently there is no evidence to support the assumptions underlying this practice, and the findings of the present study suggest that abortion may, in fact, increase mental health risks among those women who find seeking and obtaining an abortion a distressing experience.”

Read the full story here.

I’m getting weary of job advertisements in academia that state that recent graduates and even ABD candidates are welcome to apply (ABD = “all but dissertation,” in postgrad degrees where the defence of the dissertation is the final step required), and then I see the following: Those same advertisements go on to list the essential qualities in a candidate, followed by the preferred qualities. The list of essentials lists things like “must have excellent university/college teaching record” or “must have research supervision experience” or “must have experience lecturing int his subject.”

Those are the essentials? Look, either you’re open to people who have just graduated and not worked full time in the field, or you’re not. If you’re not, just say so. It’s a bit like advertising for a wife and saying “Virgins welcome to apply: Must have sexual experience!”

According to halfdone’s latest stats (October), this is the eigth most popular blog (well, blog that meets a few basic criteria) in New Zealand. For a small pond like New Zealand, you don’t really have to be a superstar to have a high ranking, but still, that’s none too shabby. I wish there were a way of counting the number of times the podcast is accessed via the iTunes store, but as far as I know, there isn’t.

How none-too-shabby is it? Well, for one thing, the website of John Key is ranked #44. You know, the leader of the nation and all that.

Of course, how popular this site is depends on my visitors. So thank you, and feel free to return often.