“What prerequisites would you place on authority before accepting its testimony? How do you know what you have not experienced empirically?”

For me, the answer to this is simple. I will accept authority, and by proxy its testimony, based on whether or not the “authority” in question has demonstrated the ability to consistently punish those who do not recognize said authority. The “God” of the Bible does not meet this criteria. There are stories of him punishing people for this, but I have not seen it demonstrated, and it sure isn’t consistent. In other words, I dont think it is unreasonable to not accept something you have not experienced first hand. I do admit, multitudes of human beings need no evidence or experience whatsoever before they will vehemently believe in something and violently defend that belief. That is the reason the church and government have little resistance when it comes to controlling all of human society. We are taught to believe that dont exist from the time we are very young. Easter Bunny, Santa, Tooth Fairy, etc. I think it makes it that much easier to train people to believe in God.

jurisnaturalist also said:

Specifically, I do not believe there is any virtue without god, because virtue requires imitation. Imitation requires a model or standard to imitate. Without an absolute standard there is no way to be certain that one is imitating the right model. If there is an absolute standard then that is your god.

Where to start? “Virtue requires imitation” sounds like a carte blanche assertion to me, which practically invites a “No, it doesn’t” response, carte blanche response. But suppose that you did define virtue in such a way that “virtue requires imitation” is true. You complain that without an absolute reference to imitate, we cannot be certain we are imitating the right model. But even if that absolute reference exists, absolute certainty is still unattainable. Absolute certainty requires perfect, complete knowledge and we just do not have that and never will. (I’m absolutely certain of that! )

But do we even have good reasons to believe such an absolute standard exists? How can we learn about it? Better yet, how can we investigate it? How can we be confident that the results of our investigation are true?

And that brings us to arguments from authority. You give the examples of the earth’s circumference and the acceleration due to gravity (at the earth’s surface). It is true that most people have not and will not personally make these measurements. But the measurements are possible, and have been verified by a large number of people. While not absolutely certain, we have very good reasons to believe that these values are accurate, and some of those reasons are rooted in the process by which those values have been verified.

When it comes to the authority of scripture, that foundation is just not there. Instead, we have anonymous and pseudonymous authorship, intentional and unintentional alterations to the text (some of which can be corrected, some not), internal contradictions, contradictions with external sources with better credentials, similarities to other texts that are not afforded a similar level of trust, evidence of legendary accretions, and so on, all combined with the lack of empirical means to verify many of its important claims. Yet, you would have us simply accept its authority? Or to reduce the difference to just a matter of degree? The difference of degree is so substantial that it becomes a difference of kind.

In an attempt to bring this back around to the original topic, or at least to the alternative formulation I suggested earlier, I might ask you to consider whether all of the above mentioned characteristics of the Bible are best explained by divine inspiration and authority or by human authorship in a godless world (or, perhaps some other alternative).

There is an underlying arrogance in this that I’ve got to say seems to be just about endemic in the neo-atheists. It’s exactly the same kind of arrogance that you might experience if you get a religious missionary knocking at your door. Don’t think people don’t notice and resent it. You don’t know any of this just as the religious don’t know it. No one can know anything about this, what you think you know about any of this you only believe.

And you drone on yet again about how no one knows anything for sure. How do you know? Aren’t you the one who’s arrogant to conclude that the rest of us don’t know anything more certainly than you do? I’ve got enough certainty to satisfy me; how about you? You sound like someone who’s worried about the absolute truth of things, otherwise you wouldn’t give a damn about certainty. Face the facts: I’ll trust my scientists–be they atheist or otherwise–over any fool blabbering about his amateurish theory of no-one-knows-nothing-for-sure-ism.

The variation in acceptance of authority as an argument is one of degree, not of kind.

Everyone picks and chooses, it’s part and parcel of the history of the collection. Try presenting the verses in Proverbs that advocate drunkenness for the poor to a tea-totaling Baptist and ask for an explanation, and the dodge that it meant grape juice should be seen for the self-serving lie that it is.

And with this, I close this investigation.

Please provide an alternative instead of just a carte blanche refutation.

I have been quite reasonable, offering good definitions, and thoroughly thought out defenses.

Polly,
I do not refute that people have compassion apart from regeneration. I may have, and if so, I recant. I do say that if not regenerate they do not have the full capacity for compassion neither do they have a rational explanation for their compassion. Empathy is another matter. It is fully within the realm of possible experiences for anyone. But purely selfless yet rational compassion is unique to the regenerate.

Alan,
Good points. You can neither prove me wrong, nor can I prove you wrong. Nor is it my intention to do so. I am merely clarifying the correct, if rare, Christian position on these issues and making an appeal to reason. I will consider your challenge to explain the world as it exists in non-theistic terms, though at first glance such would be the content of a full book rather than a blog post, however much this post is beginning to resemble a book!

Olvlzl,
There are various sources for knowledge, authority being one of them. I believe the authority of scripture because I have seen its testimony to be trustworthy. What prerequisites would you place on authority before accepting its testimony? How do you know what you have not experienced empirically? There is nothing irrational about this sort of belief.

Steelman,
You make an astute observation in pointing out the opportunity cost of abandoning deeply held convictions which have social implications. I hope I have the courage to maintain a high level of skepticism about those beliefs which I have adopted as well as those others espouse.

Polly,
I agree with you admonition against imposing beliefs on others. Personally I encourage Christians to fully renounce manipulation of the political mechanism for achieving their ends and to work politically only to increase the liberty of all individuals. Any action believers take should be purely voluntary and should encourage action in others to be fully informed and likewise voluntary.

Nathanael Snow (jn)

“Whatever is not prohibited is allowed” kind of thing.