log in

Christianity: infallibility of scripture

Luke Breuer
2009-02-22 23:06 UTC

initial thoughts
There has been much discussion about the infallibility of the Bible. I take issue with much of the discussion because we miss out on a key point: what we really want is a sound philosophy. That is to say, we all, somewhere inside us, want to live a consistent life, one free of unnerving situations where we really do not know the right thing to do. Those are not comfortable!

Consider someone who has a rudimentary understanding of science. He or she can do the basic things of life perfectly well; in fact, billions of people do that every day. However, take someone who has never seen a car and put them on a street corner in New York: he or she will probably be scared and perhaps paralyzed. All this noise and movement that looks dangerous — moving but one foot could result in imminent harm! Instead, that person would use his/her senses and try to make sense of the surroundings before moving a limb.

Rudimentary understanding is good for rudimentary living. Rudimentary living is not bad — the ascetics did it and appeared to fare well. However, many of us appear to have something in us that yearns for more knowledge, so we strive for it. The colloquialism, "great power demands great responsibility" now applies. Once we have the nuclear bomb, we need to know how to use it. Unfortunately, that is hard — science cannot answer that question. We must turn to ethics and that which encompasses ethics — philosophy.
we all have a philosophy
Consider that the idea of approaching observation without a philosophy is, itself, a philosophy. We are all biased and the only way we can become unbiased is to be come equally biased — that is, to understand how everyone else is biased. Now, this is impossible; we must somehow come to an approximation.

Something many people would debate is that a philosophy cannot be logically arrived at. Logic itself requires a philosophy — one that requires things such as the law of non-contradiction. Our philosophy shapes how we interpret the evidence — not vice versa.
two standards
We have but three standards they intertwine:
  • that logic exists and is common between all people
  • that nature exists and it has/does/will operate[d] by rules
  • that humans have consciences and they should be acted upon

These are the only things upon which humans can attempt to agree. Everyone else assumes one or more of the above.