Intro: 

This series is an atheist's review of an important anthology critical of Christian beliefs called, "The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails" (TCD), that is likely to be popularly discussed across the web.    I'll be reviewing the book in light of just about every other response to TCD on the web (pros and cons) and responding to new Christian objections as I find them.  I think this will be the best that I personally can contribute to improving the online dialogue between Christians and non-believers on popular battleground issues.

Chapter 5, "The Cosmology of the Bible" by Ed Babinski (part 5 of 5):  

I decided to go ahead and add another part to my review of chapter 5 just for the sake of The Infidel Delusion (TID). 

In a post called, "Rock and roll," Christian reviewer, Steve Hays tells Babinski:

A sustained critique, eh?  Interesting idea.  Maybe I should try that sometime.  Christian reviewer, Jason Engwer echoes the same sentiments in the comments of two posts, "Newton's bucket" and "Borrowed Cosmology." 

Anyway, in TID, Engwer made 12 basic points, Hays made 21, and Christian reviewer, Paul Manata made 2.  That's 35 points with many sub points on various items (especially when you splice in the three Appendixes aimed at Babinski).  There are also 28 posts (so far, as of November 2010) at Triablogue elaborating, reiterating, defending, and/or interacting with Babinski.  Talking points from those have been spliced in where I thought they were the most relevant.  All told there are over 100 objections here to Babinski's chapter that I've responded to.  The table of contents below can be used to quickly skim the entire interaction and see what the approaches basically amount to (and clicked on for detail).  I don't think I've missed anything significant.

Engwer circulates and elaborates on many of the typical ambiguity issues addressed in part 1 of my series.  It is about as bottom of the barrel as it gets though when apologists are forced in their worst case scenario to defend a model of inerrancy where the Bible authors believe x, but somehow don't mean x when they write x in documents that would later become the Bible (and apparently God doesn't mean it either).   In the comments of a post called, "Newton's bucket," Engwer says:

In a discussion with WAR_ON_ERROR earlier this year, I said that I think the cosmological argument against the Bible has some merit. It is significant that so many false cosmological views and cosmological ignorance existed in the past, that the Biblical authors sometimes made comments that could be taken as false cosmological claims, etc. But I don't think the argument is significant enough to refute Christianity or Biblical inerrancy on its own. It can strengthen a cumulative case, but I don't think it's sufficient by itself. And I think the larger context favors inerrancy rather than errancy.

It seems that Engwer admits that Babinski's contribution to TCD was basically a success.  I have to agree with Babinski though that in order to claim that inerrancy hasn't been refuted, one has to take what I call  the "Mario-toe" position [see image >>>].  However even a cumulative case that doesn't establish the skeptical conclusion with 100% certainty so there's no real reason to defer to that possibility that would be just as equally "rejectable" with those standards (picture lots of Marios all standing on their one pixel tippy-toes). 

It may be important to note where Hays is coming from.  In "This Joyful Eastertide," which is a book length response to the skeptical anthology, "The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave," Hays explains:

The closest thing we can ever get to a direct description of the way things are is a description supplied by the Creator of the world.

It seems from Hays' perspective he has a lot of ideology on the line.  The case in Babinski's chapter has the potential to either turn Hays into a flat-earther or refute his religion altogether:

Certainty is the yardstick of probability.  And revelation supplies the yardstick.  The explanatory power of God’s word is what makes explanation possible. Facts without values are literally meaningless. Only the Creator of the world is in a position to interpret the world. If there is an omniscient mind, and if that omniscient mind has revealed to us a finite, but interpreted body of knowledge about the way things are, then we know as much as we need to know.

And:

If Scripture claims to be wholly true, but is only partly true, then the claim is wholly false.

It's no wonder he's so irrationally defensive on this issue.  Tucked away in the Appendixes of TID Hays admits:

Hays is being remarkably candid here and that's surprising coming from him.  To summarize how he did, Hays starts off on the wrong note by misrepresenting and ignoring Babinski's main argument.  Instead of showing us why we should ignore or consistently reinterpret a preponderance of evidence pointing to the conclusion the Bible embraces false cosmology, Hays spends an unnecessary amount of time trying to show that it was possible without the means of modern science to discover more accurate facts about cosmology.  He does this despite the relevancy (and that no skeptic was saying otherwise), since human authors are not supposed to be the ones bringing inerrant content to the Bible.  Another significant theme of his critique is the idea that if certain primitive cosmological ideas can be shown not to entirely make sense, that no one would have believed in them as though everyone always rejects ideas that don't entirely make sense.  Also, if any primitive cosmology rhetoric can be associated with some other concept (like temple imagery, ANE mortuary customs, mystical experiences, etc.), that concept (in Hays' mind at least) gets full credit and it somehow always negates a belief in the primitive ideas as applied to reality.  Hays nitpicks many random points against the general trend of the Biblical evidence, and attempts haplessly to sabotage the use of an appeal to a scholarly majority that presumably is against his perspective.  There are a few instances where Hays defers to various other books with arguments he does not articulate (here, here, here, and here) and I will not be addressing those unless someone wants to send me copies of those books.  Ultimately, Hays can be found to concede the basic points and is just making a special exemption for the Bible apart from it actually earning it on this particular issue. 

Manata takes some lame shots at Babinski and contributes very little to the discussion. 

There are a few loose ends which probably won't have much effect on the overall exchange here that can be tied up later.  I'm sure I've gotten some things wrong here and hopefully some knowledgeable folk will take the time to correct me and improve the general quality of the response (and I mean you, Ed!).  [note:  Thanks Ed for the updates!]

Table of Contents:

Outro:  TID's collective response to Babinski's chapter fails by any reasonable standard and when every logical fallacy and weak argument is said and done the Triabloggers basically admit it. 

Continue reading →