Biblical Inerrancy in Peril

“The most Barker’s criticisms can accomplish is to diminish inerrancy.”

In chapter 13 in his book godless, Dan Barker writes this,

“Paul said that ‘God is not the author of confusion’, yet never has a book produced more confusion than the bible. There are hundreds of denominations and sects, all using the ‘inspired Scriptures’ to prove their conflicting doctrines. Why is this? The problem is the bible itself. People who are free of theological bias notice that the bible contains hundreds of discrepancies. Should it surprise us when… it causes so mush discord?”

Thomas Baker, co-contributor of the book Answering the Music Man called Barker’s list of biblical contradictions “shameful” and suggested that Barker purposefully ignored proper context, in order to support his atheistic agenda, (something we’ve seen Baker do to support his theistic agenda.) He wrote that he was astonished that Barker’s errors were so obvious that it reminded him of “a small child who is angry with his parents and lashes out irrationally, taking their words out of context.”

This begs the obvious question. If Barker’s errors were so obvious why did Baker feel the need to respond at all? Or for that matter, why did he feel the need to write a 9,100-word defense? It must be because Baker is at least a little bit concerned that Barker’s list of contradictions is convincing enough to possibly sway some christians.

Perhaps it would help us to gain some context if we knew who Baker’s audience is? Of course, it’s not elite christians like the authors of “Answering” who have all studied medieval philosophy. They don’t need Baker’s piece to protect them from atheists like Barker. The vulnerable ones are the average christians whose only knowledge of what’s in the bible comes from what they hear from the pulpit. These are the kinds of christians that could potentially be swayed by Barker’s examples of biblical contradictions.

And for that reason, only 460 words into his 9,100-word defense of biblical inerrancy, Baker makes two extraordinary statements. The first one, which villainizes atheists, is not all that surprising because christians do that regularly anyway. The second statement, however, borders on shocking. We will deal with each statement separately.

Statement one:

“At the outset, one thing should be kept in mind since we are dealing with atheistic critiques of the Bible: attacks against biblical revelation cannot diminish the arguments for the existence of God from natural theology because those arguments are not based on biblical revelation.”

Supposing that Baker is writing for average church going christians, then the obvious objective of this statement is to convince them that any atheistic critiques of the bible are completely invalid. This, by the way, would be another way to avoid the inconvenient truth of biblical contradictions. In addition, you can almost hear the deep resentment in Baker’s statement. Change just a few words and it becomes crystal clear how christians view atheists.

“At the outset, one thing should be kept in mind since we are dealing with infidels who criticize our holy book: Their attacks against our holy revelation cannot diminish the arguments for the existence of our God because those infidel arguments are not based on holy revelation. Off with their heads.”

So, let’s read between the lines of Baker’s statement. Basically, he’s implying something like this. “Those godless, foolish atheists are criticizing our holy book… again. They can criticize ‘God’s holy word’ all they want but they cannot weaken our belief in the existence of OUR God because of natural theology. Those atheists don’t even believe in God, so every criticism they aim at God and the bible is invalid from the start and doesn’t merit further consideration.”

Of course, the average christian has no idea what Baker means by “natural theology,” but that won’t matter to them. It sounds righteous, and if a christian with a PhD says it’s a good thing then they believe it. But in reality, natural theology, it is not such a good thing. (See after note 1.)

Also, Baker’s co-contributor in Answering, Kyle Keltz wrote that natural theology is beyond the reach of unaided reason and that “only the intellectual elite can have knowledge of God’s existence and attributes.” He maintains that “only a few have the opportunity to study and understand the truths of natural theology.” Why Baker would even mention natural theology in his argument, when he believes that average christians are not capable of understanding the concept, is a mystery to me.

Perhaps, Baker is simply hoping to keep average christians from even considering Barker’s arguments. And it just might work. When I was a young christian, I was ignorantly fearful of secular humanists; something which was encouraged from the pulpit on a regular basis. I recently wrote a blog explaining what I learned for myself about secular humanists and what they actually believe. I had been lied to. They really aren’t all that scary and for that matter, neither are atheists. (see end note 3)

Statement two

Baker’s second statement is nothing short of astounding.

“For those who are swayed by the negative criticisms of the Bible, the most these criticisms can accomplish is to diminish inerrancy, but contrary to atheists’ assertions, the biblical criticisms cannot prove that God does not exist. Hence, regardless of the nature or status of the Bible, they do not remove the metaphysical need for a First Cause”.

Once again Baker is demonstrating that he has spent way too much time studying medieval philosophy and not enough time studying logic. As I’ve said many times while critiquing the authors of Answering, if a theist wants to discredit an atheist the easiest way to accomplish that would be to prove the existence of their god. It’s that simple.

But none of the authors of Answering do this. Four articles and 32,000 words later and I have yet to find one hint of evidence that supports the existence of their god. Baker is no exception. The closest he comes to giving evidence of God’s existence is “First Cause.” Is this the best he can do? (For more about this medieval philosophical proof for God, see end note 2.)

For an evangelical like Baker to say that “the most these criticisms can accomplish is to diminish inerrancy” is simply astonishing. Christianity is like a house of cards, carefully stacked and fervently defended. If the card of biblical inerrancy is pulled, the whole house of cards would come tumbling down with it. This is why christian gatekeepers defend biblical inerrancy with such ferocity.

There are serious consequences for even hinting that the bible might not be inerrant. Baker could be banished from christian circles. The Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy clearly states,

“The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.”

Another comparison would be that this is like an experienced chess player sacrificing the queen to protect the king. It would only be attempted in extremely desperate situations. Biblical inerrancy is the queen and God’s existence is the king. If the queen is surrendered, checkmate is only a few moves away. Forfeiting biblical inerrancy is game over for evangelicals. Perhaps Baker felt that Barker’s list of biblical contradictions was convincing enough to warrant such a desperate move.

In his last paragraph he expresses hope that his brief (?) article would give christians “pause before considering any apparent contradictions.” And he encouraged them to “not be quick to judge the bible with errors.” He admitted that some issues of apparent biblical contradictions might require “a deeper analysis into the original languages” (something which no average christian would be able to do). But he assures them that with his superior knowledge he has yet to “meet an issue in the bible that does not have a reasonable interpretation that is consistent with biblical inerrancy.” (This coming from a man who believes in a six-day creation story, and the historicity of Adam and Eve.)

The average christian can now rest at ease. Elite christian gatekeepers like Baker have saved them from having to read Barker’s list and deciding for themselves. Proving once again that ignorance is bliss. And even more importantly, biblical inerrancy is back on the throne.

All is well in Christendom.

End notes:

Natural theology.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says this about Natural theology.

“The question of whether natural theology is a viable project is at the root of some of the deepest religious divisions: Shi’ite verses Sunnis; Roman Catholic verses Protestant. Unlike most of the topics discussed in an encyclopedia of philosophy, this is one over which wars have been fought and throats have been cut.”

First Cause:

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says this about First Cause.

“Thomas Aquinas believes that natural reason can demonstratively prove God’s existence. The first step is to show that, for everything in the changeable world around us, there is a first cause, or prime mover, in virtue of which all other things have their existence, their motion, their qualities and direction”.

According to medieval philosophy, if A changes B, and B changes C, and C changes D, and D changes E and so on and so forth, the question for philosophers is, what, if anything, changed A? If we presume that A started the changes and we don’t know what (if anything) changed A then by reason, A=God.  Therefore, if you’re living in the Middle Ages, “this everyone understands to be God.”

I may not have a Ph.D. in Philosophy and I’m certainly not an intellectual elite, (like the authors of Answering the Music Man), but I’m not buying this as proof of the existence of a god. And this is the best that Baker can produce as evidence?

There would be no “Does God Exist?” debates

if the question were one of evidence rather than philosophy.” Dan Barker

Scary atheist

Okay, I will admit that YouTube atheist Aron Ra is pretty scary looking. Also, there’s Matt Dillahunty, who can be mean and caustic sometimes (okay, most of the time). If you want to debate with Matt, you better bring your A game and know what you’re talking about. If you attempt to talk over him, he will let you know in no uncertain terms that, “it’s his f***in show, and you’re a dumb ass!” That might be pretty scary for most theists. But there are other atheists such as the Friendly Atheist and the Thinking Atheist who are gentler, kinder versions of atheism. Most secularists are nice people too, so don’t be afraid to befriend one of us. It might just change your life for the better.

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum