Reliably Establishing Divine Inspiration
In a tweet I affirmed the position that, "There is no possible way you could ever reliably establish what accounts were and were not divinely inspired."
John rightly calls this out as a strong claim. And strong claims ought not just be asserted but defended thru argument.
Step 1 in this establishing an account as being divinely inspired would be in establishing the existence of the Divine Inspirer. I couldn't very well call myself an atheist if I thought this step had been satisfied. However, I don't affirm the strong atheist position that all God-like entities are impossible. In light of this, and for the sake of continuing the discussion, I will grant the existence of a non-zero number of God-like entities.
I think it's important to explain that last part. The gods defined in philosophy are typically ones of metaphysical necessity. In short, they ground and/or cause that which philosophically 'requires' grounding or causation. For example, cosmological arguments conclude that a spaceless and timeless being that is sufficiently powerful to cause the universe, caused the universe, and they call it God. Transcendental arguments conclude that a necessary mind from which the laws of logic (or objective morality) are thought exists necessarily, and they call that God. Relative to my point, these arguments, taken together, do not necessarily point to a single God. One necessary mind could think the laws of logic, and another could think morality. Cosmological arguments also don't necessitate that only a single entity capable of causing universes exists. In short typical arguments for A God, could also be valid for Many Gods.
Step 2 in this process would be showing that the God(s) demonstrated in step 1 are capable of inspiring human authors in a way that humans could then accurately record. For cosmological Gods, these seem to be barred definitionally. To assert that entities that exist absent space and time can communicate directly with entities that exist in space and time requires a demonstration of methodology that seems necessarily dubious. To explain why, imagine playing the Sims video game, the keyboard and mouse are your interface method for communicating information into the Sim universe. Without that keyboard and mouse, it seems absurd to assert that the Sims are taking the actions you intend them to take. It should be obvious that given my stance on step one, I don't think this step has been adequately fulfilled, but like step one I also don't hold that it is impossible for divine inspiration to happen. But in line with what we did on step one, let's move forward under the assumption that the God(s) demonstrated to exist are capable of this kind of communication.
Step 3 in this process is the heart of this issue. Person A has claimed to have written something under divine inspiration, should his contemporaries believe him? Well, like all claims, it should be believed when there is evidence to support it. So what evidence could he provide and would it be sufficient? He could appeal to the wisdom of his writings, but this hardly seems sufficient as wisdom can be found in writings that aren't divinely inspired. He could appeal to revealed information, but if the information revealed were knowable through non-divine means this would not be strong evidence.
Of course, if A can receive divine inspiration, so too could potentially anyone else. A's contemporaries could receive divine inspiration that confirms A's writings are divinely inspired. But this only raises a new problem that ought to also be raised for person A. How do you determine if you have personally been divinely inspired? Armed with the knowledge of modern psychology and the existence of mind altering substances, the short answer is that you could not. As Matt Dillahunty says frequently, "Revelation is necessarily first person, and to everyone else it's just hearsay."
Unless steps 1 and 2 are satisfied in a way that only one God is possible. There must be a step 4, establishing which Divine Inspirer did the inspiring in question. As most theists are not polytheists I’ll leave a detailing of the problems this step faces to another time if the need should arrive. I think it suffices to say that most believers would rather circumvent step four by establishing the existence of only one Divine Inspirer.
More towards John's beliefs in particular. Christians will often point to Bible verses that speak about God's word/love/law being "written on their hearts". These verses can't help them here. At some point in the past, the first account that would one day go into the Bible was written, how was it determined that account was divinely inspired? Certainly not by any Biblical criteria. The criteria for judging divine inspiration cannot come from the Bible, else there would be no way to start assembling the Bible.
So, if John wants to hold that any of the Bible is divinely inspired. He must first deal with all three/four steps I've outlined. He cannot use the Bible to do so as that would fail to address the first account problem, nor can he use derivative works like confessions and creeds as they suffer the same problem. While I’m willing to grant Step 1 as completed, I only do so for a non-zero number of Gods, so if John wants to avoid step four he must contend with steps 1 and 2 in a way where only one God is possible. Step 2 I’m also willing to grant under the non-zero number of Gods, but if John chooses to affirm only one God in step one, he must then demonstrate the mechanism of communication between the human and divine in a way that logically follows from the God defined in Step 1. Step 3 is where I see the bulk of the focus being applied. I have no idea what John will choose to do here. I considered speculation, but the man has his own voice, I’d rather hear it than mine.
Step 1 in this establishing an account as being divinely inspired would be in establishing the existence of the Divine Inspirer. I couldn't very well call myself an atheist if I thought this step had been satisfied. However, I don't affirm the strong atheist position that all God-like entities are impossible. In light of this, and for the sake of continuing the discussion, I will grant the existence of a non-zero number of God-like entities.
I think it's important to explain that last part. The gods defined in philosophy are typically ones of metaphysical necessity. In short, they ground and/or cause that which philosophically 'requires' grounding or causation. For example, cosmological arguments conclude that a spaceless and timeless being that is sufficiently powerful to cause the universe, caused the universe, and they call it God. Transcendental arguments conclude that a necessary mind from which the laws of logic (or objective morality) are thought exists necessarily, and they call that God. Relative to my point, these arguments, taken together, do not necessarily point to a single God. One necessary mind could think the laws of logic, and another could think morality. Cosmological arguments also don't necessitate that only a single entity capable of causing universes exists. In short typical arguments for A God, could also be valid for Many Gods.
Step 2 in this process would be showing that the God(s) demonstrated in step 1 are capable of inspiring human authors in a way that humans could then accurately record. For cosmological Gods, these seem to be barred definitionally. To assert that entities that exist absent space and time can communicate directly with entities that exist in space and time requires a demonstration of methodology that seems necessarily dubious. To explain why, imagine playing the Sims video game, the keyboard and mouse are your interface method for communicating information into the Sim universe. Without that keyboard and mouse, it seems absurd to assert that the Sims are taking the actions you intend them to take. It should be obvious that given my stance on step one, I don't think this step has been adequately fulfilled, but like step one I also don't hold that it is impossible for divine inspiration to happen. But in line with what we did on step one, let's move forward under the assumption that the God(s) demonstrated to exist are capable of this kind of communication.
Step 3 in this process is the heart of this issue. Person A has claimed to have written something under divine inspiration, should his contemporaries believe him? Well, like all claims, it should be believed when there is evidence to support it. So what evidence could he provide and would it be sufficient? He could appeal to the wisdom of his writings, but this hardly seems sufficient as wisdom can be found in writings that aren't divinely inspired. He could appeal to revealed information, but if the information revealed were knowable through non-divine means this would not be strong evidence.
Of course, if A can receive divine inspiration, so too could potentially anyone else. A's contemporaries could receive divine inspiration that confirms A's writings are divinely inspired. But this only raises a new problem that ought to also be raised for person A. How do you determine if you have personally been divinely inspired? Armed with the knowledge of modern psychology and the existence of mind altering substances, the short answer is that you could not. As Matt Dillahunty says frequently, "Revelation is necessarily first person, and to everyone else it's just hearsay."
Unless steps 1 and 2 are satisfied in a way that only one God is possible. There must be a step 4, establishing which Divine Inspirer did the inspiring in question. As most theists are not polytheists I’ll leave a detailing of the problems this step faces to another time if the need should arrive. I think it suffices to say that most believers would rather circumvent step four by establishing the existence of only one Divine Inspirer.
More towards John's beliefs in particular. Christians will often point to Bible verses that speak about God's word/love/law being "written on their hearts". These verses can't help them here. At some point in the past, the first account that would one day go into the Bible was written, how was it determined that account was divinely inspired? Certainly not by any Biblical criteria. The criteria for judging divine inspiration cannot come from the Bible, else there would be no way to start assembling the Bible.
So, if John wants to hold that any of the Bible is divinely inspired. He must first deal with all three/four steps I've outlined. He cannot use the Bible to do so as that would fail to address the first account problem, nor can he use derivative works like confessions and creeds as they suffer the same problem. While I’m willing to grant Step 1 as completed, I only do so for a non-zero number of Gods, so if John wants to avoid step four he must contend with steps 1 and 2 in a way where only one God is possible. Step 2 I’m also willing to grant under the non-zero number of Gods, but if John chooses to affirm only one God in step one, he must then demonstrate the mechanism of communication between the human and divine in a way that logically follows from the God defined in Step 1. Step 3 is where I see the bulk of the focus being applied. I have no idea what John will choose to do here. I considered speculation, but the man has his own voice, I’d rather hear it than mine.
Comments
Post a Comment