In the previous post I presented an argument for the following proposition: either God does not exist, or the Bible is not God’s communication to us. Having let the post simmer for a while, and having given I think a fair amount of time for anyone willing to comment for it’s support the ability to do so, I’ll now carry on with a response.
Since the argument is logically valid, its success hinges on the truth of these three premises:
(1) If God exists, He would communicate in the written word with those He has created.
(2) If God communicates in the written word with those He has created, then that communication will have some combination of properties IQL [improved quality of life] and R [revelation].
(3) The Bible does not contain any information exhibiting properties IQL and R.
What can we say of premise (1)? As far as I can tell, this actually seems uncontroversial between interested parties. I take it that atheists are willing to grant this premise simply for the sake of argument with the theist to get a conversation going. For example, I don’t find very often atheists claiming that composing such a document is incompatible with other properties of a [supposed] God. I take (1) to be true, mainly as an implication of already acknowledging that the Bible is God’s written communication to us.
Premise (2) is more controversial. Property IQL implies certain motivations of God, the assumption to which a theist need not be committed. What kind of priority might God place on providing His creatures information that extends their life, eases physical hardship, etc? For suppose that life on earth is the proverbial “blink of an eye” compared to the afterlife in God’s company? Or suppose that God desires one of our highest priorities to be to know Him in ever greater intimacy? Given either of these possibilities, we can see that property IQL may actually be a lower priority for God than initially we might assume. In other words, the theist will not be compelled to agree that God ought to provide information improving our quality of life here, because that is not His top objective. Indeed it is quite plausible that information improving the quality of life can ultimately distract us from knowing God more intimately. It seems to me there is ample evidence to suggest that human beings will oblige happily when afforded the opportunity to idle away our time on trivial pursuits. So it’s reasonable to think that communication from God will not be filled with information sparing us hardship and turmoil, because it seems we don’t necessarily excel at using “free time” to the greatest purposes. Therefore, although denying (2) doesn’t seem overtly compelling, I think the theist comfortably could deny (2) on the grounds that such communication would not contain property IQL.
But now, aren’t we begging the question against the defender of the argument here? It seems we’ve just presupposed the truth of at least part of the Bible when we postulate characteristics of God that count against premise (2), and this entire argument is founded on discrediting the Bible as God’s written communication to us. So we need to come up with some ideas about God that are independent of the Bible to argue against premise (2), right?
Well actually, we aren’t obliged to assume that the Bible is God’s written communication to us to postulate possible characteristics of God that happen to agree with the biblical description of God. Reviewing carefully the reasons given to disbelieve premise (2), we are no more presupposing the Bible’s divine revelation in our argument than we are presupposing the divine revelation of the Qu’ran. A Muslim could make the same objections to premise (2) that we’ve made here. Indeed I speculate very many reflective non-Christians and non-Muslims could believe that if there is a God, He/She/It probably isn’t interested to see us waste time on unimportant matters, or desires us to know more about (or even know) He/She/It. So, no, the argument here against (2) does not entail a commitment to the idea that the Bible is God’s written communication to us.
Regarding (3), I think we can make a couple of objections. First, consider again what might make information revelatory: (a) it is previously unknown, and (b) in a religious sense, it is specifically about God’s will. Suppose (a) and (b) are sufficient to declare information a “revelation”. If this is true, and assuming that the set of surviving documents from antiquity encompass the scope of what was known at the time relevant to our inquiry, then we are in a position to deny (3). Assuming they are true, the following historical facts are counterexamples to (3):
- God entered into a covenant with the nation of Israel, declaring them his “chosen people” (Exodus 19, Deuteronomy 7).
- God wanted the nation of Israel to inhabit the land of Canaan (Genesis 26, Exodus 3).
- God communicated a relatively specific design to the temple (1 Chronicles 28).
So assuming any of these statements about God’s will are true, they do qualify as revelatory, and therefore we can deny (3). But suppose the defender of the argument objects that we are begging the question – that we have assumed the Bible to be revelatory to provide counterexamples. How can we answer this?
Well, if the concept of “revelatory communication” is to have any meaning, then it is impossible to avoid referencing the document we are claiming contains revelation. Were the information found in another source, then the document in question couldn’t be revelatory according to our definition. So either “revelatory communication” is meaningless, or we can refer to the Bible for counterexamples to (3). If the objector elects to choose the former disjunct, this commits him to abandoning property R in the original argument, and weakening the original argument accordingly.
So we’ll assume that “revelatory communication” is coherent, and therefore can deny premise (3).
But what about property IQL? Does the Bible contain any information that can improve the quality of life? Let’s be clear on what is not required to defeat (3). We don’t have to show that there is some information with property IQL that is found only in the Bible, and nowhere else. We simply have to find counterexamples to the idea that there isn’t any supposed communication from God that contains information improving the quality of life.
Of course, the next difficulty is finding uncontroversial counterexamples, since the phrase “improved quality of life” is a little ambiguous. Let’s try and keep it simple: let any information that tends to promote survival be information that improves quality of life. So understood, here are just two counterexamples:
- Matthew 7:12 – “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”
- Leviticus 19:18 – “Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.”
So even though the Christian will assert that promoting well-being in this life is not the primary purpose of God’s revelation to us in the Bible, nevertheless there clearly are maxims in the Bible that can help us achieve this goal.
For the reasons given, I think Premise (2) is not necessarily true, and Premise (3) is false. Therefore, the argument fails.