I'm striving to get away from arguing with people who do not understand my points so my point here is not to argue. I'm just answering a question because it's a reasonable question with a reasonable answer. Stan at the blog, Winging It, recently asked a question about those who'd say that conservative types sometimes appear to be speaking for God, presuming that their opinions are one in the same as God's Word.
He says he doesn't understand those who object to this. Here is my answer to his question. First, a bit of context. Stan wrote...
Oddly enough, it appears that those who are complaining that a straightforward reading of Scripture -- reading it like it is written and taking it as it appears to mean -- is not a reasonable means of knowing what God thinks are pretty sure that they know what He thinks ... at least enough to know you're wrong.
I'm trying to figure out what's being said here. When they complain that we read and feed back what the Bible says as true and call it "speaking for God", what are they saying?
What we are saying is clear and I call as my first and only witness, Stan Smith:
We are saying that YOU, STAN SMITH, DO NOT THINK THAT WE CAN KNOW WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS.
This is a simple, demonstrable fact. When I or folk like me read the Bible, strive to take it seriously, seeking to follow God and conclude that...
Genesis is clearly written in a mythic style;
That the Bible does not "define" marriage anywhere;
That the Bible clearly does not teach sola scriptura, that this is a human theory contrary to biblical teaching (or at least beyond biblical teaching);
That clearly Jesus teaches us that Christians killing people in wartime is contrary to his teachings;
That clearly we are to live simple lives;
That clearly Jesus would support gay folk loving and marrying;
etc... that when we conclude these as overtly clear and obvious biblical teachings, YOU DO NOT THINK we are reading the Bible correctly. We are telling you what we think the Bible "obviously" or "clearly" is teaching and you disagree with our hunches. So, the obvious fact of the matter then is that you, Stan Smith (and people like you) do not believe that all those who read the Bible understand it correctly.
The obvious follow up question then is, "Well, Stan, if you do not think we all read the Bible correctly, on what reasonable and consistent basis do you conclude that you and those who agree with you are the ones that are correct?"
The answer to THIS necessary question is that you have nothing. You have nothing other than your opinion. The one and only answer you have is, "Well, because I think it is clear that they are mistaken..." Which is to say, you have your opinion.
As a point of fact, your opinion is not provable (if you could prove it, you would do so. You can't.) It IS your opinion. And there's nothing wrong with that, so long as you don't conflate your hunches and opinions with God's Word or fact.
As a further reasonable conclusion then, we can safely determine that you (nor I) have a definitive way of knowing that your opinion is the correct one.
What are we left with then?
That Stan Smith definitively does not rationally believe that we can "know" what the Bible is teaching and say with authority that he (or we) have the authoritative answer.
The defense rests. Thank you Stan for your testimony. (And if I have misstated something or made a mistake about your opinion, by all means, correct me. I don't believe I have.)
221 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 221 of 221Just to put it into context, you were asked a question about whether God wants us to affirm SS and you responded...
I have never made the claim that I can objectively know what God wants. I would make the claim that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a Biblical doctrine and that it is the doctrine that most closely describes the Biblical position. I've never suggested this doctrine is mandatory for salvation because I don't know. I'm sure this answer will annoy you...
No, the answer did not annoy me. BUT, I did have a question to clarify what you're suggesting. YOU SAID, "I would make the claim that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is a Biblical doctrine and that it is the doctrine that most closely describes the Biblical position."
My reasonable question is, WHEN you make this claim, are you doing so suggesting that it is a FACT that SS most closely describes the "Biblical position" OR is it your personal subjective opinion?
Or, if you have some option that acknowledges, NO, it is not a demonstrated fact, BUT it is something more than a subjective opinion, by all means, provide some data about what that other option is.
What is ungracious about asking this reasonable question? What is "lying" about asking this reasonable question?
I don't know if you're just reading things into what I'm saying or what, but I don't see how this is anything but a reasonable question asked in the process of a polite and respectful conversation.
"What you said most closely describes the Biblical position in your subjective opinion, correct?"
Yes, I believe that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the construct that most closely aligns with Biblical teachings. In my opinion, the facts of the content of the Biblical teaching most closely align with the Sola Scriptura construct.
"Are you saying that your answer to THIS question is YES, it IS my opinion?"
I am saying that my opinion is supported by enough evidence to suggest that the position about which I hold and opinion can reasonably be described as factual.
"It IS subjective?"
My opinion may be (although it is supported by ample history, evidence, and scholarship), but that doesn't address the object of my opinion.
"What I think most closely describes the Biblical position in MY opinion? Is that what you're saying?"
I am saying that Sola Scriptura most closely correlates to the Biblical teaching.
"There are no lies, here."
This in and of itself is a lie. I've pointed out your repeated false statements and your failure to acknowledge them or to acknowledge my correction of your false statements while simply repeating the lies demonstrates the falseness of your claim.
"My reasonable question is, WHEN you make this claim, are you doing so suggesting that it is a FACT that SS most closely describes the "Biblical position" OR is it your personal subjective opinion?"
I am stating that if one looks at the Biblical teaching that it factually supports that construct of Sola Scriptura. I further claim that even a cursory examination of the ample evidence extant supports this claim. Note, I am not claiming that Sola Scriptura is directly from God.
"What is ungracious about asking this reasonable question?"
What is gracious about revising history? What is gracious about ignoring questions asked of you? What is gracious about repeatedly making false claims about answers I gave to your questions? For you to pretend that you're just asking questions is just as false as your editing of my answers to falsely characterize my response."
"What is "lying" about asking this reasonable question?"
I've pointed out specifically where you've lied, both omission and commission. I've pointed out your editing of my answer in order to falsely characterize my response. I've pointed out that by ignoring my corrections and repeating your lies that your acts were intentional. Now, I point out that your question itself is essentially a lie. I've never suggested that your "asking this reasonable question" was a lie. I've pointed out the specifics.
"I don't know if you're just reading things into what I'm saying or what, but I don't see how this is anything but a reasonable question asked in the process of a polite and respectful conversation."
Oh, you mean that you are politely and respectfully not answering questions you've been asked? Or that you have politely and respectfully edited my answers in order to shape a false narrative? Or do you mean that you've politely and respectfully redefined a series of exchanges where you ask questions and I answer them as a "conversation"?
If all you are going to do is make crap up, lie about it, then pretend that you've done nothing wrong you force me to make a choice.
If all you are going to do is make crap up, lie about it, then pretend that you've done nothing wrong you force me to make a choice.
Do I demonstrate integrity by staying true to my word and continuing to answer your questions.
Do I demonstrate my integrity by refusing to allow you to pull me into s situation where I am only trying to correct your falsehoods.
I do know that the Biblical concept that seems relevant is "Thou shalt not bear false witness."
1. You are simply factually mistaken about any "lies." It is a false claim. Of the two of us, I alone am the one who knows if I have intentionally made a false claim and I know for myself that I did not. Is it possible that I have misunderstood you? Sure. Is it reality that I have lied? No.
That is a fact.
2. You said...
I am saying that my opinion is supported by enough evidence to suggest that the position about which I hold and opinion can reasonably be described as factual.
So, you are saying that it is a FACT (and not a personal subjective opinion) that the Bible teaches "sola scriptura..." and you can say so authoritatively and definitively?
If so, by that, do you mean then, that GOD wants us to believe SS? (You believe, if I'm not mistaken, yes... that God is the ultimate author of the Bible and thus, if that is the case and you are saying that it is a "fact" that the SS theory of some humans can be "described as factual," then are you saying that God has specifically developed a SS theory, not humans? And that, therefore, God wants us to believe SS?
I've pointed out specifically where you've lied, both omission and commission. I've pointed out your editing of my answer in order to falsely characterize my response. I've pointed out that by ignoring my corrections and repeating your lies that your acts were intentional.
I have not deliberately told a lie, either by omission or commission. Where you suggest that in your opinion you think I've lied (ie, to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive, MW) by "editing my answer in order to false characterize my response...," you have misunderstood my motive. I shorted your answer (after quoting the whole response) to the simple "NO," in order to shorten the comment, not to falsely characterize your response. Do you understand, now, my actual motive and why you are factually mistaken and making a false claim?
I am stating that if one looks at the Biblical teaching that it factually supports that construct of Sola Scriptura.
and
Note, I am not claiming that Sola Scriptura is directly from God.
Perhaps you can understand my confusion, Craig. I am honestly not sure what you're saying. This is why I'm asking questions.
"IF one looks at the Biblical teaching..." WHAT biblical teaching are you speaking of? Are you speaking of ALL the verses that SS theorists advocate to explain SS?
When you say the "construct of SS," are you suggesting that SS is a human theory? That it is not something God insists upon?
IF it is a human theory (in your opinion) (and, of course, it literally is...), then do you think that this theory is a DEMONSTRABLE FACT and that God's INTENT is for us to view the Bible as the SS? And that this is a fact?
I apologize for not understanding your position, but I don't. It sounds at one time you are saying that SS is a fact and that your opinion that SS is a fact is not an opinion, but a fact... But at the same time, you're saying that SS does not come directly from God. Perhaps I'm just asking the wrong question or not understanding aright your answers, but the fact is, I'm not.
My best guess (and I'm asking, not saying) is
1. that you do NOT think that SS is a FACT,
2. that you are not saying God demands SS,
3. that the Bible does not insist upon SS,
4. but that you do think it is a reasonable human theory,
5. and that, TO YOU, PERSONALLY, it is the most reasonable human theory,
6. but that this does not mean it is a fact that God wants us to affirm SS, it is a human opinion.
Am I understanding you correctly?
"Is it possible that I have misunderstood you?"
Sure, it's also possible that you're a pink unicorn.
"Sure. Is it reality that I have lied?"
Yes, as I have demonstrated by quoting your specific words.
"So, you are saying that it is a FACT (and not a personal subjective opinion) that the Bible teaches "sola scriptura..." and you can say so authoritatively and definitively?"
I am saying that my opinion is supported by enough evidence to suggest that the position about which I hold and opinion can reasonably be described as factual.
"If so, by that, do you mean then, that GOD wants us to believe SS?"
I believe that the construct of Sola Scriptura is in line with what the Bible teaches. I further believe the Bible to be "God breathed".
"...then are you saying that God has specifically developed a SS theory, not humans?"
I am suggesting that humans took the Biblical teaching and described it as Sola Scriptura.
"And that, therefore, God wants us to believe SS?"
Answered. But in your world it's respectful and polite to ask the same question twice in the same comment.
"Do you understand, now, my actual motive and why you are factually mistaken and making a false claim?"
I understand that you are making unprovable claims about your motives. had you only done so once and not continued to do so after I corrected your mistake, I could almost believe you. Had you not used your editing to twist my position I might almost believe you. Had you addressed this earlier, I might almost believe you. Given the real situation, not a chance.
"IF one looks at the Biblical teaching..." WHAT biblical teaching are you speaking of? Are you speaking of ALL the verses that SS theorists advocate to explain SS?"
No, I'm speaking of Numbers 1:32.
"When you say the "construct of SS," are you suggesting that SS is a human theory? That it is not something God insists upon?"
I'm suggesting that it is a label given to a group of biblical teachings so as to provide a more effective way to communicate those teachings. You may or may notbe aware that this kind of thing is fairly common.
"IF it is a human theory (in your opinion) (and, of course, it literally is...), then do you think that this theory is a DEMONSTRABLE FACT and that God's INTENT is for us to view the Bible as the SS?"
Given that you comment is based on your unprovable assumption, I can't really give you a definitive answer until you prove your assumption. However, given in the absence of any alternative to the Bible, I'd have to say that there is not much other option.
"Am I understanding you correctly?"
No, you can tell by the fact that I've never said any of the above.
And that this is a fact?
I give it up for this time, Craig. I don't know what you believe but here are the facts. Do with them what you will.
1. Some people hold the PERSONAL HUMAN OPINION that SS is what God would have us believe, that it is God's Will that we treat "the Bible" as the Supreme Authority. It is, in fact, a personal subjective opinion, not a provable fact.
2. Some people hold the personal human opinion that the Bible "insists" upon SS. This, too, is a fallible human opinion, not a provable fact.
3. Some people hold that the human construct of SS is a biblical "fact." This is, factually, not provable. It is a subjective opinion, not a fact.
4. To the point of this post, some people claim that they can "know" that some points in the Bible such as the ones I listed (Genesis' literary genre, SS, God's opinion about marriage equity, etc) and that they "know" their OPINIONS are not mere opinions, but have the weight of fact. They are mistaken.
5. In fact, they would gladly admit that we do not all read and "know" the Bible's intent on these matters because they would gladly admit that people like me, having read the Bible and reached conclusions, are NOT "knowing" the true answers, but are mistaken.
6. And finally, if and when asked the question, "On what basis do you 'know' YOUR opinions and interpretations are authoritatively the right ones...?" they have no answer other than to say, "I'm sure I'm reading the Bible right because, I'm reading the Bible right. I'm just reading what it says!" or words to that effect. That is to say, they have no more authority or supportive data to prove their personal human opinions about God's mind are the right ones, not demonstrably, not authoritatively.
7. And to the degree that they presume to say that, Yes, they DO have the authority to speak for God on these matters and that they can't be mistaken on them, that their opinions are as facts on these questions, well, they simply can't support these sorts of claims with anything more than their personal testimony and bluster. It is arrogant for anyone to make such claims, if they do so, for they are elevating their opinions to God's Word. Shame on anyone who'd do that.
Peace.
"I give it up for this time.."
Not just this time, every time. As long as you can't dictate what the facts are and people have the temerity to ask you questions you give up. You ignore what you choose to ignore, you make up what you choose to make up, you assign the motives to others that you choose to assign.
At least your quitting solves my integrity problem.
1-7 If those are "facts", and "facts" are objectively provable, then objectively prove them.
You won't, because you don't do proof. You just demand it of others.
Just by way of clarification and for instance...
Some people hold the PERSONAL HUMAN OPINION that SS is what God would have us believe, that it is God's Will that we treat "the Bible" as the Supreme Authority. It is, in fact, a personal subjective opinion, not a provable fact.
I'm saying that one's personal opinion IS a subjective opinion when it's not demonstrably a fact. IF someone wants to make their case that their OPINION about, say, Genesis' factual historic nature, the onus is on THEM to prove it, not others to disprove their claims.
Anytime you want to provide support for thus far entirely empty claims, you can. You have opted not to do so.
Good day.
"Anytime you want to provide support for thus far entirely empty claims, you can. You have opted not to do so."
Ironic much. I can't believe that somewhere deep down inside that you don't understand how ridiculous it is for you to continue to demand support ("data") while not providing any for your own claims. Just look up, 7 claims of fact with zero support. Yet, when "data" is provided for you your ignore or dismiss it.
1. Some people hold the PERSONAL HUMAN OPINION that SS is what God would have us believe, that it is God's Will that we treat "the Bible" as the Supreme Authority. It is, in fact, a personal subjective opinion, not a provable fact.
I can easily demonstrate that someone who says, "God 'gave' us Genesis to be taken as literally factual history" is offering a HUMAN opinion. That's just what it is. IF they want to make the claim that their opinion is fact, the onus is on them.
Peer review, supportable claims and all that.
What do you not understand about that?
"Peer review, supportable claims and all that."
I realize that you are still clinging to the peer review fantasy and that you somehow think that simply saying "I supported my claim" is support. But as things sit, you've got 7 unsupported fact claims as your example of why it's wrong to make unsupported claims. Of course, you've also got plenty of "data" that suggests that peer review is not what you think it is that you've not countered either.
'I can easily demonstrate that someone who says, "God 'gave' us Genesis to be taken as literally factual history" is offering a HUMAN opinion."
BFD, that doesn't address the underlying issue. Anyone can offer any opinion. The problem is that Genesis is either fact or not. If you are simply satisfied with the superficial, great.
"What do you not understand about that?"
I've understood it every time you've repeated yourself.
OH Look, more data.
http://jrs.sagepub.com/content/99/4/178.full
Lock S. A Difficult Balance: Editorial Peer Review In Medicine. London: Nuffield Provincials Hospital Trust,1985
↵ Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wager E, Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA2002;287:2784 -6
CrossRefMedlineOrder article via InfotrieveWeb of Science
↵ Godlee F, Gale CR, Martyn CN. Effect on the quality of peer review of blinding reviewers and asking them to sign their reports: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA1998;280:237 -40
CrossRefMedlineOrder article via InfotrieveWeb of Science
↵ Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ2004;328:673
Abstract/FREE Full Text
↵ Wennerås C, Wold A. Sexism and nepotism in peer-review. Nature1997;387:341 -3
CrossRefMedlineOrder article via InfotrieveWeb of Science
↵ Peters D, Ceci S. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: the fate of submitted articles, submitted again. Behav Brain Sci 1982;5:187 -255
CrossRef
↵ McIntyre N, Popper K. The critical attitude in medicine: the need for a new ethics. BMJ1983;287:1919 -23
FREE Full Text
↵ Horton R. Pardonable revisions and protocol reviews. Lancet 1997; 349: 6
CrossRefMedlineOrder article via InfotrieveWeb of Science
↵ Rennie D. Misconduct and journal peer review. In: Godlee F, Jefferson T, eds. Peer Review In Health Sciences, 2nd edn. London: BMJ Books, 2003:118 -29
↵ McNutt RA, Evans AT, Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW. The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. JAMA1990;263:1371 -6
CrossRefMedlineOrder article via InfotrieveWeb of Science
↵ Justice AC, Cho MK, Winker MA, Berlin JA, Rennie D, the PEER investigators. Does masking author identity improve peer review quality: a randomised controlled trial. JAMA1998;280:240 -2
CrossRefMedlineOrder article via InfotrieveWeb of Science
↵ van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Smith R, Black N. Effect of blinding and unmasking on the quality of peer review: a randomised trial. JAMA1998;280:234 -7
CrossRefMedlineOrder article via InfotrieveWeb of Science
↵ van Rooyen S, Godlee F, Evans S, Black N, Smith R. Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers' recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ1999;318:23 -7
Abstract/FREE Full Text
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34518/title/Opinion--Scientific-Peer-Review-in-Crisis/
http://www.pnas.org/content/109/42/17028.abstract
"A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic."
67% of retractions are due to FRAUD and you still cling to "peer review".
http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1439
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/bogus-science-paper-reveals-peer-review-s-flaws-1.2054004
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review
I can easily demonstrate that someone who says, "God 'gave' us Genesis to be taken as literally factual history" is offering a HUMAN opinion. That's just what it is. IF they want to make the claim that their opinion is fact, the onus is on them.
~Dan
I'd be thrilled if you could actually demonstrate the objective truth of any of your claims, or even answer questions. Obviously, acknowledging data contrary to your position isn't on your agenda.
Easy. When someone says "I think X" they are offering an opinion (Opinion: a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.)
That is what opinions are, by definition. As a point of fact.
Thus proving my point.
NOW, if someone wants to say, of their opinion, "I think X and it is a known, objective and demonstrable fact!" then the onus is on them to prove their claim, as they are making the claim of fact.
Done.
~Dan
"I'd be thrilled if you could actually demonstrate the objective truth of any of your claims, or even answer questions. Obviously, acknowledging data contrary to your position isn't on your agenda."
Of course this also applies to your opinion. As long as you don't support your opinions, then they really have absolutely zero value to anyone beyond you. Given that, I'll just say that in my opinion, your unsupported opinions are simply valueless in any larger sense.
Applies to my opinion about what?
I've been quite clear that my opinions about unprovable facts are opinions, not facts. And where I've cited objective facts (the definition of words, for instance), I've been quite clear there, too. I supported my fact claims. You haven't.
The thing is, it appears you and conservative fundamentalists in general appear to want to insist that other people's opinions are opinions but your opinions about unprovable claims are either facts, God's Word or "like a fact..." whatever that means.
The point remains: Those who claim that their hunches about what God thinks about Genesis literary genre, about SS and the other examples I offered of unprovable claims... are simply making empty, baseless claims. Which is fine as long as they recognize it as their opinion. It's when they conflate their opinions with "facts" that they run afoul of science and reason and when they conflate their opinions with "God's Word" that they step into a zone of arrogance and blasphemy.
In all instances, they should know that they are just embarrassing themselves.
~Dan
"Applies to my opinion about what?"
virtually anything. As long as your opinions have little or no support, they have little or no value in the world outside of your imagination.
"I supported my fact claims. You haven't."
Please, then, support this one.
You've asked and I've answered that question multiple times. If you choose to continue to play this childish game, fine. But at this point my sense of integrity is satisfied that I have given you enough answers to have fulfilled any possible obligation I had imposed on myself. If you don't want to look at the previous answers, there is nothing I can do about that. If you don't want to answer questions I can't do anything about that either.
But simply simply submitting to your bludgeoning asking of the same questions over and over again is not a "two way conversation" or anything resembling dialogue and I just see no point in subjecting myself to it.
Post a Comment