Bridging the Axiomatic Gap to Inspiration
One of the largest intellectual gaps that exists in the United States today is on the fault line of Biblical inspiration – the theory that the Bible contains revelation from God and timeless moral and scientific truth. On one side, there are those that view Biblical inspiration as axiomatically true; they do not need to justify or logically defend this belief, and they are unswayed by evidence or reasoning that contradicts it. On the other side are those that think that Biblical inspiration is a conclusion that either does or does not follow from evidence and reason (by the way, plenty of people in the second category are believing Christians); they are willing to discuss Biblical inspiration in light of arguments supporting or refuting it.
There can be no dialog between those who believe a phenomenon to be axiomatically true and those who arrive at a conclusion on the phenomenon after considering evidence and reason. The two camps have no common ground. This article is not an attempt to rehash the inspiration argument itself. It is an attempt to bridge this false gap and bring the inspiration proposition into the intellectual arena and subject it to the rules of reason.
Axioms are necessary assumptions that lie at the base of any logical system. They are not proved themselves and cannot be disproved, and entire systems rest on their shoulders. Euclidean geometry is based on a handful of simple postulates. From these starting points, complex conclusions can be built (and are reconstructed every year by middle school math students with straightedges and compasses). Philosophy uses certain axioms, too, such as self-awareness. Everyday life relies on the axiom that our senses are describing something real.
Can biblical inspiration be a theological axiom – something taken for granted upon which an entire system can be built? If so, then the gap between inspirationalists and reasonable people is un-bridgeable. This question can be answered with a strong “NO.” Whether biblical inspiration is true or not is open to debate just like other ideas and cannot ever be seen as axiomatically true. Four definitional requirements exclude inspiration from ever being considered axiomatic.
One common requirement for an axiom is for the thing to be self-evident. In mathematics, this is often achieved through definition. In philosophy, logical coherence is required; for instance, “it is impossible for the something to be and not be at the same time in the same manner” is self evidently true. Proof is not required of these things. The proposition that “the Bible is inspired revelation from God” is obviously not self evident for a myriad of reasons. Just to name a few: there is no “the Bible,” there are scores of permutations of it; most people in the world do not see this as self evident; the existence of God is not self-evident; inspiration itself is a murky theory that has no definite description of its mechanisms.
Another requirement of axioms is that they be necessary assumptions. In any system, the fewest possible number of assumptions is preferred, and unnecessary assumptions are rejected (perhaps to be proved later). What is the necessity of the inspiration proposition? Some believe that Christianity cannot exist without it, but they are refuted by the millions of Christians who go on practicing without that particular belief. Some believe that the Bible lacks authority without inspiration, but this only makes the proposition desirable, not necessary; the Christians who accept Biblical authority without inspiration disprove the necessity again.
One more axiomatic requirement is that the axiom must be the kind of thing for which evidence and reason cannot be used. Euclid’s axioms are not the sort of things that can be debated reasonably; they are postulates to be accepted or rejected without relevant evidence or reason one way or the other. The inspiration proposition is not like that at all. Even its proponents seem to recognize this when they attempt to prove it. Those who doubt inspiration (both believers and nonbelievers) marshal enormous amounts of evidence and reason to reject the inspiration proposition. The very existence of this evidence – on both sides – eliminates the possibility of inspiration being axiomatically true.
The final requirement of an axiom to be considered here is that it must produce logically consistent results when used along with other axioms. The inspiration proposition does not do this. Those who incorporate inspiration as one of their “life axioms” inevitably come to logically inconsistent opinions. This can most easily be seen by the diversity of interpretation among all Christians. It can also be seen in an individual believer’s logically incoherent worldview.
Although there is no logical ground to justify the axiomatic defense of inspiration, it will undoubtedly continue. In many cases, inspiration believers resort to the axiom defense when they realize that they are unable to support it with reason and evidence. They intuitively realize that valid axioms are untouchable, but they fail to realize that their belief does not qualify as an axiom.
Don’t worry; I know that when I write things like this that most people won’t read it. :)
I read it. ha.
I just don’t know how to bridge the gap. It just seems that sometimes one is content to move through life without evidence for this one thing that plays such a pivotal role in his/her life.
Perhaps the problem is that s/he doesn’t even see it as an axiom(not knowing what the word or concept is, usually), rather as one of those starting places for life like language, love, etc. They simply call it a belief and so often so many people around us think that a “belief” does not require any evidence.
Or maybe they consider it a safe assumption. An assumption being where you have to start most times. I don’t know. I’m baffled. Maybe we can begin to work it out right here.
Working out the uncertainty of the metaphysical realm doesn’t sound like something I want to do.
I think you’ve correctly pinpointed the futility in mixing deduction with metaphysics. By its very nature, deductive reasoning rests upon a unknown premise (unless were talking about legal deduction). To derive a principle from an unknowable premise is suspect enough. Metaphysical speculation makes matters even worse, for reasons you’ve pointed out: necessity, evidence, consistency, etc. When we start to derive entire arguments grounded in speculation about the ethereal world, any half-assed counter-reasoning is sure to break its logical coherency. To base an entire argument on a principle derived from speculation about the ethereal is rather silly. To then state such a principle as axiomatically true is unsupportable. The end results in all this is an over-estimation of deduction as a form of argument. You can’t use deduction when it doesn’t make sense. But people still do.
Perhaps more interesting is why people continue to cling to religion, despite its unsupportable and often irrational foundation. There seems to be something in the human mind that strives for order and purpose, even if such teleological propositions aren’t axiomatically true.
I think you’ve also identified the problem beset by Aristotelian logic upon philosophy and theology. The obsession with deductive logic and syllogisms is maddening sometimes. Inductive logic and statistics are far more interesting and useful.
Most people don’t want to think about most things – that applies to those who take inspiration as an axiom and those who do not. This kind of idea is for those who are willing to think, but try to excuse their assumption about inspiration from rational analysis. I don’t think we can give those people a free ride out of reality with their beliefs anymore.
They may not understand the difference between a warranted assumption and an unwarranted assumption.
David, don’t you think you could apply this same critique of divine inspiration to the theory of natural rights or innate ideas? Most notably the notion that all human beings are endowed (by their creator) with certain inalienable rights. Can this be viewed as axiomatically true? Or is this perhaps another conveniently ignored axiom that rips at the seems when scrutinized?
I would venture to say that things such as human equality are most certainly not self-evident (although they may be preferable). Such notions are created and enforced, but are not “natural.” If anything, they are unnatural.
I would agree with that. I think very few real life things are self-evident (maybe one’s own existence, but not a whole lot else). It may still be legitimate, though, to enforce and codify preferable ideas.
I hope to God they are. Hence the importance of good political and legal philosophy.
I would absolutely agree that natural rights is ruled out as an axiom by this kind of critique.
If anything, natural right theory could possibly survive as a conclusion if enough evidence is brought together to support it. But I am pretty highly skeptical of the inherent rights to “life, liberty, and property.” These are such new developments in human political history, it is hard to view them as axiomatically true (all of a sudden). And they are not recognized rights in a lot of other countries.
One other difference between the inspiration proposition and natural rights theory is that the latter is codified in a legitimate legal document. In a way, that is self-justifying. It can be critiqued on a philosophical level, but it is not just a philosophical argument anymore; it is an established legal principle. In the legal system that stems from the Constitution, it may be legitimate to cite natural rights as given.
I wholly agree. I might also add that you sound much different now than you did, say, a year ago.
I’d like to think that I’ve evolved a lot. My perspective is pretty different on a lot of things now.
This doesn’t belong in any particular response, but I really like this reply format.
Funny how we call them natural then, eh?
It’s all just idea marketing. It’s like the international law paradigm of “realism.” That is still a pet peeve.
What, the rational actor model, the self-interest motive, or the anarchical and amoral structure?
Now you’re just showing off. The point is that ideological labels like “realist” paradigm imply that any alternatives are… unrealistic.
but that’s also the problem with ‘pro-life’
Of course, then there’s the problem that divinely inspired writings and inalienable rights endowed by a Creator presuppose divinity and a Creator. To me, this is skipping straight to Square Two.
At least square 2
So this was my attempt at logic to get past those who assert biblical inspiration as a self-evident assumption. When logic doesn’t work, some have tried ridicule. The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has been making me laugh a lot lately.
http://www.venganza.org/
Snow boots are worn by pilots and surfers begin if the girls commenced to don Ready cleaner we could http://jasoufylri.blog.hu/
use cold h2o diluted to which includes a dry cloth moistened with drinking water ratio wet the surface with the shoe this water ought to be much less on the slightly damp usually do not use UGG snow is immersed in drinking water get started Welcome to get snow boots UGG monopoly