Well this weekend, she wanted to prove to me that there could be such a thing as a square circle. She painted this picture to prove it.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Square circles
My daughter, Grace, is 8 years old. I've been trying to teach her logic and careful thinking since she was born. One issue in particular that I've taught her about is the law of non-contradiction, and to illustrate it, I often ask her if she can draw a square circle. I told her the reason it's impossible is because it entails a contradictions, and real contradictions can't exist in reality.
Well this weekend, she wanted to prove to me that there could be such a thing as a square circle. She painted this picture to prove it.
Well this weekend, she wanted to prove to me that there could be such a thing as a square circle. She painted this picture to prove it.
Saturday, September 01, 2007
Does it dishonor God not to presuppose inerrancy?
I was just listening to the latest episode of Stand to Reason, and it got me to thinking about something. There's a big feud in the world of Christian apologetics between evidentialism and presuppositionalism. The objection most presuppositionalists bring against evidentialism is that it somehow dishonor's God. One example is when evidentialists make historical arguments for the resurrection of Jesus without assuming the Bible is the inerrant word of God.
Tactically speaking, though, I think evidentialists are right to do this. It's not easy to build an argument for scriptural inerrancy. But it turns out that it's not necessary to assume scriptural inerrancy to demonstrate the resurrection of Jesus. A person who argues for scriptural inerrancy in order to demonstrate the resurrection is going to have a much more difficult time than a person who argues for the resurrection on historical grounds.
If you're arguing for the resurrection on historical grounds, and somebody starts bringing up contradictions in the Bible, you can dismiss many of them as irrelevent to your case. You don't have to get bogged down in each issue the other person brings up.
It seems to me that the object of apologetics ought to be to give a defense for the hope that we have. That's what it means to give an apologetic. A sound argument is a sound argument. If arguing for the resurrection on historical grounds without the necessity of proving inerrancy first is easier, then why not? It's not as if you have to argue from inerrancy to make the argument. You just have to say that the historical case is sound even if the Bible is errant. I don't see how that dishonor's God.
Tactically speaking, though, I think evidentialists are right to do this. It's not easy to build an argument for scriptural inerrancy. But it turns out that it's not necessary to assume scriptural inerrancy to demonstrate the resurrection of Jesus. A person who argues for scriptural inerrancy in order to demonstrate the resurrection is going to have a much more difficult time than a person who argues for the resurrection on historical grounds.
If you're arguing for the resurrection on historical grounds, and somebody starts bringing up contradictions in the Bible, you can dismiss many of them as irrelevent to your case. You don't have to get bogged down in each issue the other person brings up.
It seems to me that the object of apologetics ought to be to give a defense for the hope that we have. That's what it means to give an apologetic. A sound argument is a sound argument. If arguing for the resurrection on historical grounds without the necessity of proving inerrancy first is easier, then why not? It's not as if you have to argue from inerrancy to make the argument. You just have to say that the historical case is sound even if the Bible is errant. I don't see how that dishonor's God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)