POWELL:
It is my contention that Biblical inerrantists tend to promote solutions to Biblical problems that are merely possible rather than probable. As I see it, their goal is to preserve Biblical inerrancy pretty much what ever it takes. They are unwilling to accept that, based on the likely meaning of the language, the Bible is wrong.

A problem in persuading them to discard inerrancy is that the people who wrote the Bible are long dead so they aren't available to clarify what they meant. So, I would like to use a modern example, one in which there's greater hope in coming to a firm conclusion.

So, let's test the inerrantist's methodology.

Here's the text:

http://wordsmith.org/awad/awadmail51.html

From: Robert Bellin (robtbATglobalnet.co.uk)
Subject: Re: A.Word.A.Day--gambit

In chess, the phrase 'minor piece' has the specific connotation of knight or bishop (the queen and rooks are 'major' pieces). Non-chessplayers should also be aware that while the king, queen, rook, bishop, and knight, are pieces, the pawn is always a pawn and never referred to as a piece.

A chess glossary would define 'gambit' along the lines of: A sacrifice of material in the opening, usually a pawn, in order to obtain an advantage in another element, for example in time (manifested as a lead in development).

Robert Bellin (International Master of Chess)

POWELL:
So, allegedly we have an expert of chess, someone who can justifiably put IM before their name when writing about chess who defines "gambit" as used in chess. In case you're ignorant of chess terminology, this chess definition is not an oddity. It's one I frequently see on the Internet.

So, I'm asking inerrantists to explain how we should handle this claim.

Because he's a chess expert should we assume that he's familiar with his own affairs and knows what he's talking about and so conclude that probably the chess gambit is properly defined as a sacrifice?

Or, should we conclude that a chess gambit is not properly defined as a sacrifice and so probably Robert Bellin is wrong?

There are possible ways to harmonize his words with reality. Should we do that to preserve Bellin Inerrancy?

John Powell

Originally posted by John Powell

It is my contention that Biblical inerrantists tend to promote solutions to Biblical problems that are merely possible rather than probable.

Of course, we'd just throw this right back at you and say that you tend to promote "problems" in the Bible that are based on hypothetical situations that are merely possible (if even that), rather than probable. So where does that leave us? At what point exactly does something move from "possible" to "probable"? When there's "enough" evidence? How much does there have to be, and how is that measured?

I'm glad you raised this topic. It's something I often present to Christians because they think that merely presenting a possible solution to a problem resolves the problem, then act frustrated when skeptics question the solution. DagoodS at Debunking Christianity frequently blogs on this topic.

The same methodology that makes the Bible inerrant, also makes the Book of Mormon or Qu'ran inerrant. It's curious to see Christians use the methodology of "most probable explanation" in dismissing those works, while using a different methodology of "any possible explanation" in defending the Bible.

Originally posted by FlimFlamboyant

Of course, we'd just throw this right back at you and say that you tend to promote "problems" in the Bible that are based on hypothetical situations that are merely possible (if even that), rather than probable.

I hardly think problems in the Bible like the different genealogies given of Jesus are "based on hypothetical situations".

Also, cannot the Mormon or Muslim say the same thing when you attack the veracity of their holy books?

Originally posted by FlimFlamboyant

So where does that leave us? At what point exactly does something move from "possible" to "probable"? When there's "enough" evidence? How much does there have to be, and how is that measured?

I think the solution lies in applying the methodology of the Argument to the Best Explanation.

POWELL:
It is my contention that Biblical inerrantists tend to promote solutions to Biblical problems that are merely possible rather than probable.

FLIMFLAMBOYANT:
Of course, we'd just throw this right back at you and say that you tend to promote "problems" in the Bible that are based on hypothetical situations that are merely possible (if even that), rather than probable.

POWELL:
Ah, if only they would do that more often. It would help demonstrate that they understood the difference.

FLIMFLAMBOYANT:
So where does that leave us? At what point exactly does something move from "possible" to "probable"?

POWELL:
Excellent question. When the estimated probability rises from something greater than zero to something greater than 0.5.

FLIMFLAMBOYANT:
When there's "enough" evidence?

POWELL:
Of course.

FLIMFLAMBOYANT:
How much does there have to be, and how is that measured?

POWELL:
There needs to be enough. It is measured by the person doing the estimation.

So, if I argue
"Probably, Mark's Jesus was wrong when he said X rather than Y."
Then it's an improper counter to argue
"But X is possibly correct" by providing evidence that X is possibly correct.

That would be a proper counter if the claim were "Certainly, Mark's Jesus was wrong when he said X rather than Y."

Rather, the proper counter would be
"But, probably Mark's Jesus was NOT wrong when he said X. On the contrary, probably Mark's Jesus was right when he said X." and then provide evidence that PROBABLY Mark's Jesus was right to say X.

See?

John Powell

I think there are times when it is reasonable to not take the 'best explanation'. On plenty of issues the evidence stacks out at, say, 60-30-10 and I think it is reasonable to sometimes take the 30. As long as something is reasonably possible even if there is a more likely alternative it isn't always wrong to believe it. Of course that doesn't justify taking an option that has, say, a 0.5% chance of being true when the alternative is 99.5% likely...

I guess my point is just that some issues aren't clearcut and two intelligent people can arrive at different conclusions without either of them being stupid or acting illogically.

Originally posted by whizler

I hardly think problems in the Bible like the different genealogies given of Jesus are "based on hypothetical situations".

All I said was that Powell tends to promote "problems" in the Bible that are based on hypothetical situations. Did I mention anything specific? No. Then you come along and deem it prudent to pull this out of your rear end. Had I been so inclined, I could have simply responded to Powell's OP with similar foolishness and said something like this:

"I hardly think solutions to Biblical 'difficulties' like what Jesus did after his baptism are based on things that are merely possible, rather than probable."

But I didn't, because that's a blatant strawman.

Originally posted by John Powell

Excellent question. When the estimated probability rises from something greater than zero to something greater than 0.5.

Wow! Now, when you've managed to create the world's first Likelyhood-o-meter, you let us all know, ok?

There needs to be enough. It is measured by the person doing the estimation.

EXACTLY my point. I'm done here.

Originally posted by James Peter

I think there are times when it is reasonable to not take the 'best explanation'. On plenty of issues the evidence stacks out at, say, 60-30-10 and I think it is reasonable to sometimes take the 30. As long as something is reasonably possible even if there is a more likely alternative it isn't always wrong to believe it. Of course that doesn't justify taking an option that has, say, a 0.5% chance of being true when the alternative is 99.5% likely...

I guess my point is just that some issues aren't clearcut and two intelligent people can arrive at different conclusions without either of them being stupid or acting illogically.

POWELL:
In general, it would NOT be irrational for Jack to believe X when Jill estimates X to be merely possible. What WOULD be irrational is for Jack to believe X when Jack estimates X to be merely possible.

John Powell

POWELL:
Excellent question. When the estimated probability rises from something greater than zero to something greater than 0.5.

FLIMFLAMBOYANT:
Wow! Now, when you've managed to create the world's first Likelyhood-o-meter, you let us all know, ok?

POWELL:
Don't give me the credit. Give it to the first person to come up with the word "probably." How do you determine whether something "probably" is the case?

POWELL:
There needs to be enough. It is measured by the person doing the estimation.

FLIMFLAMBOYANT:
EXACTLY my point. I'm done here.

POWELL:
You're leaving without dealing with my chess gambit question? Oh well.

John Powell

Originally posted by John Powell

POWELL:
It is my contention that Biblical inerrantists tend to promote solutions to Biblical problems that are merely possible rather than probable.

Here's the problem: You need to come up with some definitive way of determining which is which. Arbitrarily elevating your own arguments to the status of "probable" while dismissing your opponents' arguments as "merely possible" won't cut it. You need solid, defensible reasons for concluding so, and in the absence of contradictory evidence, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the Bible writers were accurate and truthful in their accounts (as per the rules of legal evidence regarding personal testimony, the burden of proof always falls on the objector).

POWELL:
So, allegedly we have an expert of chess, someone who can justifiably put IM before their name when writing about chess who defines "gambit" as used in chess. In case you're ignorant of chess terminology, this chess definition is not an oddity. It's one I frequently see on the Internet.

So, I'm asking inerrantists to explain how we should handle this claim.

Very simply, if there is no contradictory evidence (say, another expert of equal credibility who contests the definition) then we can conclude that the definition is most likely accurate.

This stuff really isn't that complicated, John.

POWELL:
It is my contention that Biblical inerrantists tend to promote solutions to Biblical problems that are merely possible rather than probable.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
Here's the problem: You need to come up with some definitive way of determining which is which.

POWELL:
We use our own methodology when we determine that something probably is the case. Whether our method is the most efficient available is another matter.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
Arbitrarily elevating your own arguments to the status of "probable" while dismissing your opponents' arguments as "merely possible" won't cut it.

POWELL:
There is subjectivity involved since I might estimate X to be merely possible while you estimate it to be probable. What I'm arguing is that YOU need to argue that X is PROBABLE and provide evidence intended to support your position that X is PROBABLE. What I see too often is inerrantists merely claim X is possible and support the possibility claim and they figure that's sufficient, when it isn't.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
You need solid, defensible reasons for concluding so, and in the absence of contradictory evidence, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the Bible writers were accurate and truthful in their accounts (as per the rules of legal evidence regarding personal testimony, the burden of proof always falls on the objector).

POWELL:
But, when a claim appears to be contradictory then one is justified in concluding contradiction. We don't have to prove that it's a contradiction, that there's no possible way they could be telling a consistent story. If that were the case then juries could never convict based on lying witnesses. Perjury could never be established. We only have to show that PROBABLY the stories contradict. After all, we don't assume that people are infallible.

POWELL:
So, allegedly we have an expert of chess, someone who can justifiably put IM before their name when writing about chess who defines "gambit" as used in chess. In case you're ignorant of chess terminology, this chess definition is not an oddity. It's one I frequently see on the Internet.

So, I'm asking inerrantists to explain how we should handle this claim.

MOUNTAIN MAN:
Very simply, if there is no contradictory evidence (say, another expert of equal credibility who contests the definition) then we can conclude that the definition is most likely accurate.

This stuff really isn't that complicated, John.

POWELL:
Thank you for participating.

That's a respectable answer. What you have is an expert claiming something about which he is an expert, so provisionally you assume he's correct. I would do the same provided it wasn't an extraordinary claim.

Now, here's some more information offered by, let's say, "Chess John."

CHESS JOHN:
In chess there are pawn gambit openings, what people like Bellin would characterize as beginning moves in chess in which a pawn is sacrificed in order to obtain an advantage in another element of chess other than material, such as position. There are two continuations to those openings. There is "gambit accepted" and "gambit declined." You can look this up if you don't believe me. So, now my question is, how does a chess player decline a piece that his opponent sacrificed? Would that mean putting the sacrificed pawn back on the board? Putting a legally captured piece back on the board is contrary to the rules of chess. Probably, Bellin is wrong.

POWELL:
So, now what is your method to deal with this?

Will you now conclude that probably Bellin was wrong or will you continue to believe that probably he's correct and seek a harmonization having to do with the meanings of "sacrifice" and "capture" and perhaps challenge the information Chess John provided above as coming from somebody who doesn't know what he's talking about?

You see, Chess John is claiming that probably Bellin is wrong. So, will you argue and support the claim that probably Bellin is correct? To say "Bellin is an expert" could work when the information is sufficiently sketchy, but as enough evidence comes forward suggesting error, then "Bellin is an expert, so he's probably right" isn't enough. Even experts make errors.

John Powell

The king, the major pieces, the minor pieces, and the pawns.

Originally posted by John Powell

POWELL:
So, allegedly we have an expert of chess, someone who can justifiably put IM before their name when writing about chess who defines "gambit" as used in chess. In case you're ignorant of chess terminology, this chess definition is not an oddity. It's one I frequently see on the Internet.

So, I'm asking inerrantists to explain how we should handle this claim.

Because he's a chess expert should we assume that he's familiar with his own affairs and knows what he's talking about and so conclude that probably the chess gambit is properly defined as a sacrifice?

Characterized that way, it would be reaosnable to do so.

Or, should we conclude that a chess gambit is not properly defined as a sacrifice and so probably Robert Bellin is wrong?

No.

There are possible ways to harmonize his words with reality. Should we do that to preserve Bellin Inerrancy?

There is no need to harmonize his words with reality. The usage of the term "sacrifice" in chess is consistent with the practice of allowing terms to be borrowed across disciplines for unrelated, yet similar concepts.

fwiw
guaca.

Originally posted by John Powell

POWELL:
In general, it would NOT be irrational for Jack to believe X when Jill estimates X to be merely possible. What WOULD be irrational is for Jack to believe X when Jack estimates X to be merely possible.

John Powell

I think that would depend on what else Jack knows about X and where X figures in a holistic continuum of data. IMO, It is impossible to determine if it is actually irrational based on the rather abstract scenario above.

Originally posted by John Powell

CHESS JOHN:
In chess there are pawn gambit openings, what people like Bellin would characterize as beginning moves in chess in which a pawn is sacrificed in order to obtain an advantage in another element of chess other than material, such as position. There are two continuations to those openings. There is "gambit accepted" and "gambit declined." You can look this up if you don't believe me. So, now my question is, how does a chess player decline a piece that his opponent sacrificed? Would that mean putting the sacrificed pawn back on the board? Putting a legally captured piece back on the board is contrary to the rules of chess. Probably, Bellin is wrong.

POWELL:
So, now what is your method to deal with this?

Will you now conclude that probably Bellin was wrong or will you continue to believe that probably he's correct and seek a harmonization having to do with the meanings of "sacrifice" and "capture" and perhaps challenge the information Chess John provided above as coming from somebody who doesn't know what he's talking about?

It seems that Bellin or Chess John is wrong.

You see, Chess John is claiming that probably Bellin is wrong. So, will you argue and support the claim that probably Bellin is correct? To say "Bellin is an expert" could work when the information is sufficiently sketchy, but as enough evidence comes forward suggesting error, then "Bellin is an expert, so he's probably right" isn't enough. Even experts make errors.

John Powell

True.

fwiw
guaca.

Originally posted by John Powell

POWELL:
We use our own methodology when we determine that something probably is the case.

So you're saying that it's subjective? So the assertion that "Such and such is more probable" is effectively a meaningless statement, according to you.

POWELL:
There is subjectivity involved since I might estimate X to be merely possible while you estimate it to be probable. What I'm arguing is that YOU need to argue that X is PROBABLE and provide evidence intended to support your position that X is PROBABLE. What I see too often is inerrantists merely claim X is possible and support the possibility claim and they figure that's sufficient, when it isn't.

As you said, it's subjective. Personally, I would accuse skeptics of asserting often uninformed "possibilities" (i.e. "It's possible that such and such is a contradiction") and then stubbornly rejecting all attempts to reconcile the supposed error with additional information. In fact, I would say that any assertions of error based on a plain reading of the text are almost immediately suspect and the burden automatically falls on the skeptic to show that a plain reading is necessarily correct.

To put it another way, I doubt there are any skeptics who would accept a non-scientific "common sense" refutation of evolution or even take it seriously, yet they expect Christians to take with utmost seriousness similarly uninformed criticisms of the Bible. It's almost as if there's a double standard at play.

POWELL:
But, when a claim appears to be contradictory then one is justified in concluding contradiction. We don't have to prove that it's a contradiction, that there's no possible way they could be telling a consistent story.

However, if it can be shown that "contradiction" is not the only possible explanation then one does themselves no disservice to reject that conclusion. Furthermore, if there is nothing beyond a plain reading of the text to suggest a contradiction and the contradiction can be reconciled with additional information then it is not unreasonable (one might be inclined to say that it is in fact necessary) to reject the charge of contradiction and accept the reconciliation as most likely true.

POWELL:
Thank you for participating.

That's a respectable answer. What you have is an expert claiming something about which he is an expert, so provisionally you assume he's correct.

You forgot the second half of the equation, so let me amend your summation: "What you have is an expert claiming something about which he is an expert and there exists no evidence to the contrary, so provisionally you assume he's correct."

The phrase in italics is rather critical to my position.

Now, here's some more information offered by, let's say, "Chess John."

CHESS JOHN:
In chess there are pawn gambit openings, what people like Bellin would characterize as beginning moves in chess in which a pawn is sacrificed in order to obtain an advantage in another element of chess other than material, such as position. There are two continuations to those openings. There is "gambit accepted" and "gambit declined." You can look this up if you don't believe me. So, now my question is, how does a chess player decline a piece that his opponent sacrificed? Would that mean putting the sacrificed pawn back on the board? Putting a legally captured piece back on the board is contrary to the rules of chess. Probably, Bellin is wrong.

POWELL:
So, now what is your method to deal with this?

Assuming that "Chess John" is an expert of equal credibility and assuming I knew nothing about chess and wouldn't immediately recognize that "Chess John's" understanding of "gambit declined" is utter nonsense, I would have to do additional research to see which position the facts actually support (in this case, "gambit declined" simply means that the opposing player chooses not to capture the "offered" piece and makes a different move instead).

More simply, nothing can be determined from a plain contradiction removed of all context (in a similar way that the two statements "a baby is born every 7 minutes" and "a pregnancy typically lasts for 9-months" might appear at first glance to be contradictory).

To say "Bellin is an expert" could work when the information is sufficiently sketchy, but as enough evidence comes forward suggesting error, then "Bellin is an expert, so he's probably right" isn't enough.

Of course, my position was never "Bellin is an expert, so he's probably right." Rather, it was "Since Bellin is an expert and if there's no evidence to the contrary then he's probably right." Since "Chess John" provided what at first glance to the uninitiated might appear to be contradictory evidence, the assumption that Bellin is correct can no longer be granted and the evidence has to be dealt with one way or another.

POWELL:
So, allegedly we have an expert of chess, someone who can justifiably put IM before their name when writing about chess who defines "gambit" as used in chess. In case you're ignorant of chess terminology, this chess definition is not an oddity. It's one I frequently see on the Internet.

So, I'm asking inerrantists to explain how we should handle this claim.

Because he's a chess expert should we assume that he's familiar with his own affairs and knows what he's talking about and so conclude that probably the chess gambit is properly defined as a sacrifice?

GUACAMOLE:
Characterized that way, it would be reaosnable [reasonable] to do so.

POWELL:
Agreed.

POWELL:
Or, should we conclude that a chess gambit is not properly defined as a sacrifice and so probably Robert Bellin is wrong?

GUACAMOLE:
No.

POWELL:
What do you think "sacrifice" means?

POWELL:
There are possible ways to harmonize his words with reality. Should we do that to preserve Bellin Inerrancy?

GUACAMOLE:
There is no need to harmonize his words with reality. The usage of the term "sacrifice" in chess is consistent with the practice of allowing terms to be borrowed across disciplines for unrelated, yet similar concepts.

fwiw
guaca.

POWELL:
Then what is the definition of "sacrifice" that is being borrowed by Bellin?

POWELL (to James Peter):
In general, it would NOT be irrational for Jack to believe X when Jill estimates X to be merely possible. What WOULD be irrational is for Jack to believe X when Jack estimates X to be merely possible.

GUACAMOLE:
I think that would depend on what else Jack knows about X and where X figures in a holistic continuum of data.

POWELL:
Jack's estimate is based on his knowledge and where it lies on his data sheet. Where X lies on the data sheet of others is a separate matter.

GUACAMOLE:
IMO, It is impossible to determine if it is actually irrational based on the rather abstract scenario above.

POWELL:
What's logically contradictory about determining rationality based on the abstract scenario provided?

CHESS JOHN:
In chess there are pawn gambit openings, what people like Bellin would characterize as beginning moves in chess in which a pawn is sacrificed in order to obtain an advantage in another element of chess other than material, such as position. There are two continuations to those openings. There is "gambit accepted" and "gambit declined." You can look this up if you don't believe me. So, now my question is, how does a chess player decline a piece that his opponent sacrificed? Would that mean putting the sacrificed pawn back on the board? Putting a legally captured piece back on the board is contrary to the rules of chess. Probably, Bellin is wrong.

POWELL:
So, now what is your method to deal with this?

Will you now conclude that probably Bellin was wrong or will you continue to believe that probably he's correct and seek a harmonization having to do with the meanings of "sacrifice" and "capture" and perhaps challenge the information Chess John provided above as coming from somebody who doesn't know what he's talking about?

GUACAMOLE:
It seems that Bellin or Chess John is wrong.

POWELL:
It's possible to harmonize them both. Should we try to do that or should we proceed on the assumption that one or both is wrong, i.e. that they contradict and, if it matters to us, try to figure out what is most likely?

POWELL:
You see, Chess John is claiming that probably Bellin is wrong. So, will you argue and support the claim that probably Bellin is correct? To say "Bellin is an expert" could work when the information is sufficiently sketchy, but as enough evidence comes forward suggesting error, then "Bellin is an expert, so he's probably right" isn't enough. Even experts make errors.

GUACAMOLE:
True.

fwiw
guaca.

POWELL:
Ok. So who do you think is right, if either, (perhaps both) and why?

Well, to be more analogous to the Biblical situation, so Chess John and Bellin could be analogs to two Gospel writers, I would need Chess John to have said something else, to not have directly challenged Bellin.

John Powell