| crisp-on-believing-that-the-scriptures-are-divinely-inspired.pdf |
Truth Seeker said... Hello,
I was recently reading, but not fully understanding Thomas Crisp's article in the book Analytic Theology: new essays in the philosophy of theology (http://www.apologeticsinthechurch.com/uploads/7/4/5/6/7456646/oxford_analytic_theology_-new_essays_in_philosophy_of_theology1.pdf).
In that chapter he considers the following set of premises to argue that the Bible is divinely inspired:
T: God exists.
A: God intervenes in history to provide a propositional revelation about
himself.
B: Jesus’s teachings were such that they could be plausibly interpreted as
implying that he intended to found a church that would function for a
long period time as an authoritative source of information about him.
C: Jesus rose from the dead.
D: In raising Jesus from the dead, God declared his approval of Jesus’s
teachings.
E: The Church that, by the start of the Wfth century, had pronounced on which books were divinely inspired, is a legitimate successor—the ‘closest
continuer’—of the church founded by Jesus.
If so, then the strongest case for IB will be compromised by an undermining objection.
I was recently reading, but not fully understanding Thomas Crisp's article in the book Analytic Theology: new essays in the philosophy of theology (http://www.apologeticsinthechurch.com/uploads/7/4/5/6/7456646/oxford_analytic_theology_-new_essays_in_philosophy_of_theology1.pdf).
In that chapter he considers the following set of premises to argue that the Bible is divinely inspired:
T: God exists.
A: God intervenes in history to provide a propositional revelation about
himself.
B: Jesus’s teachings were such that they could be plausibly interpreted as
implying that he intended to found a church that would function for a
long period time as an authoritative source of information about him.
C: Jesus rose from the dead.
D: In raising Jesus from the dead, God declared his approval of Jesus’s
teachings.
E: The Church that, by the start of the Wfth century, had pronounced on which books were divinely inspired, is a legitimate successor—the ‘closest
continuer’—of the church founded by Jesus.
If so, then the strongest case for IB will be compromised by an undermining objection.
As far as I can tell, the undermining objection has to do with certain branches of the lattice Tim has in his article where he responds to Plantinga's PDP argument except that Crisp thinks that these other branches are either too low or inscrutable and that this results in a Dwindling of Probabilities though for different reasons than Platinga argues. I use similar premises for thinking that the Bible is inspired (though shorted in number), but still, if Crisp is correct, it seems I cannot use arguments and evidence to believe the Bible is inspired any longer. What do you think?
Thank you,
Kevin 10/08/2012 3:22 PM Lydia McGrew said... I've seen that article. The fact that he in talks about the lattice device that Tim invented really is pretty irrelevant. Tim was explicit (as I recall) that that device is merely a tool for modeling the Theorem on Total Probabilities and should *not* be thought of as modeling inference per se. Crisp's use of it seems to me merely a distraction.
In the middle of his article Crisp makes a fairly serious technical error, an error that he should have avoided, given his inclination towards the use of technical devices and given the fact that he evidently thinks rather highly of himself in that regard. Since I will be urging one or more young philosophers to take the opportunity to tear into this one--it would make a pretty sweet publication--I am more than slightly disinclined to explain that error in detail here. Suffice it to say that Crisp does not in fact understand comparative inference and the evaluation of Bayes factors, though he quite evidently thinks he does. Because he does not understand comparative inference and the evaluation of Bayes factors, he says some airy and dismissive things that are badly misguided and that are quite important for his argument. Sorry not to be able to be more explicit.
Thank you,
Kevin 10/08/2012 3:22 PM Lydia McGrew said... I've seen that article. The fact that he in talks about the lattice device that Tim invented really is pretty irrelevant. Tim was explicit (as I recall) that that device is merely a tool for modeling the Theorem on Total Probabilities and should *not* be thought of as modeling inference per se. Crisp's use of it seems to me merely a distraction.
In the middle of his article Crisp makes a fairly serious technical error, an error that he should have avoided, given his inclination towards the use of technical devices and given the fact that he evidently thinks rather highly of himself in that regard. Since I will be urging one or more young philosophers to take the opportunity to tear into this one--it would make a pretty sweet publication--I am more than slightly disinclined to explain that error in detail here. Suffice it to say that Crisp does not in fact understand comparative inference and the evaluation of Bayes factors, though he quite evidently thinks he does. Because he does not understand comparative inference and the evaluation of Bayes factors, he says some airy and dismissive things that are badly misguided and that are quite important for his argument. Sorry not to be able to be more explicit.
RSS Feed