Critiquing: Do You Believe in the Clarity of Scripture?

May 6, 2024 | #STRask – Stand to Reason

Terminology Clarity — Ambiguity Issues — Logical Fallacies — Unsubstantiated Claims — Testing Methods

---

Introduction

This critique evaluates the logical coherence of the content addressing whether Stand to Reason accepts the doctrine of biblical perspicuity. The focus is on identifying logical inconsistencies, cognitive biases, and unsubstantiated claims, providing a thorough critique from a neutral standpoint.

Logical Coherence

The content attempts to justify the doctrine of biblical perspicuity by discussing the clarity of essential biblical teachings. Here are the key points of critique:

1. Terminology Clarity and Ambiguity

The content acknowledges the potential for ambiguity due to translation and cultural differences:

“So there’s a translation involved that then, because of the nature of translations, creates more ambiguity.”

This recognition is crucial, yet the argument overlooks the complexity and extent of these ambiguities. Simply acknowledging translation issues does not resolve the inherent difficulties in ensuring clarity across different languages and cultural contexts. The expectation that essential doctrines are clear is weakened by these significant barriers to understanding.

2. Circular Reasoning

The argument presented relies on the assumption that the Bible is inherently clear about essential doctrines, which is a form of circular reasoning. For instance:

“They had an intention of communicating clear truth to their audiences.”

This assumes the very point it aims to prove, without providing independent evidence that the doctrines are indeed clear. The assertion that communication was intended to be clear does not necessarily mean it was effectively clear to all readers, especially across different eras and cultures.

3. Overgeneralization

The speaker asserts:

“The plain things, the main things are the clear things.”

This statement overgeneralizes by implying that all essential doctrines are clear. However, numerous theological debates and differing interpretations among scholars and religious leaders indicate that what is considered “plain” and “main” is not universally agreed upon. This overgeneralization fails to account for the diverse and often conflicting interpretations of key biblical texts.

Cognitive Biases

Several cognitive biases are evident in the content:

1. Confirmation Bias

The content selectively references instances where biblical texts appear clear while ignoring or downplaying examples of ambiguous or contested passages. For example:

“They were written to people who the writers expected to understand what they were writing about.”

This reflects confirmation bias by emphasizing clarity in certain contexts while overlooking the extensive interpretative challenges faced by readers throughout history.

2. Straw Man Fallacy

The content misrepresents opposing viewpoints by oversimplifying them. For instance:

“People take these religious texts in a highly spiritualized fashion. They’re looking for hidden meanings.”

This oversimplification creates a straw man argument, making it easier to dismiss alternative interpretations without addressing their actual complexity and rationale.

Unsubstantiated Claims

The content makes several claims that lack sufficient evidence:

1. Intrinsic Clarity

The speaker asserts:

“All the things that are really important are stated in a fairly perspicuous manner with clarity.”

This claim about intrinsic clarity is presented without substantiating why or how these essential doctrines are universally clear. The argument assumes a particular interpretative framework without engaging with the extensive scholarly debate on the clarity of biblical texts.

2. Hermeneutical Competence

The claim:

“If you have good hermeneutics, you’ll understand the text clearly.”

This assertion implies that hermeneutical competence guarantees clarity, which is not necessarily true. Even among highly skilled scholars, there are significant disagreements on interpretations, indicating that clarity is not solely a function of interpretative skill.

Testing Alleged Promises

The content discusses the clarity of essential doctrines but does not propose methods to empirically test these claims. From a neutral standpoint, any alleged promises of clarity should be subjected to empirical scrutiny. For example, if certain doctrines are clear, surveys or studies could be conducted to assess the consistency of understanding among diverse groups of readers.

Degree of Belief and Evidence

The content emphasizes that beliefs about biblical clarity should be mapped to the degree of available evidence. As the speaker highlights:

“The appeal that I’m making is to the nature of communication and to the kinds of communications we’re talking about.”

This principle should be applied consistently, requiring robust evidence and engagement with counterarguments to substantiate claims about the perspicuity of scripture. The extensive theological debates and differing interpretations among scholars suggest that the clarity of essential doctrines is not as self-evident as claimed.

Conclusion

The critique reveals several areas where the content’s logical coherence could be improved. By avoiding circular reasoning, addressing cognitive biases, substantiating claims, and advocating for empirical testing of assertions about clarity, the arguments presented would be more robust and credible. It is essential to ensure that one’s degree of belief aligns with the available evidence to maintain intellectual integrity.

---

I invite you to discuss these arguments further in the comments section.