"The Acts of the Apostles provides evidence that Christian proclamation was engaged from the very first with the philosophical currents of the time. In Athens, we read, Saint Paul entered into discussion with 'certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers' (17:18); and exegetical analysis of his speech at the Areopagus has revealed frequent allusions to popular beliefs deriving for the most part from Stoicism. This is by no means accidental. If pagans were to understand them, the first Christians could not refer only to 'Moses and the prophets' when they spoke. They had to point as well to natural knowledge of God and to the voice of conscience in every human being (cf. Rom 1:19-21; 2:14-15; Acts 14:16-17). Since in pagan religion this natural knowledge had lapsed into idolatry (cf. Rom 1:21-32), the Apostle judged it wiser in his speech to make the link with the thinking of the philosophers, who had always set in opposition to the myths and mystery cults notions more respectful of divine transcendence." -- Pope St. John Paul II, Fides et Ratio

Saturday, October 21, 2023

Some Clarifications on an Argument Against the Bible Being a Fallible Collection of Infallible Books

In previous posts (HERE and HERE), I formulated the following argument against the Bible being a fallible collection of infallible books:

  1. If a collection of books is fallible, then it can be the case that something that one of the books in the collection teaches is wrong (since at least one of the books could be fallible).
  2. If a collection of books is a collection of infallible books, then all of the books in the collection are infallible.
  3. If a book is infallible, then it cannot be the case that something it teaches is wrong.
  4. Therefore, if a collection of books is a collection of infallible books, then all of the books in the collection are such that it cannot be the case that something that one of the books in the collection teaches is wrong (2, 3).
  5. Therefore, if a collection of books is a collection of infallible books, then it is not the case that the collection of books is fallible (1, 4).
  6. Assume for reductio that Sacred Scripture is a fallible collection of infallible books.
  7. Then, Sacred Scripture is not a fallible collection of infallible books (5, 6).
  8. Contradiction (6, 7). Therefore, Sacred Scripture is not a fallible collection of infallible books.

After recently receiving some friendly pushback on this argument in the form of private correspondence, I would like to clarify some of the fundamental principles and assumptions at play in the argument which were left implicit in previous presentations.

Read more »
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

God as a Hypothesis: A Response to Edward Feser

On his blog, Edward Feser argues that it is illegitimate to think of God as a hypothesis ( Edward Feser: Is God’s existence a “hypothesis”?...