➘ #07 Source Article

◉ A reader-friendly explanation of the symbolic logic above.

1) Two Competing Explanations

The argument begins by setting up two possible explanations for the Bible’s authorship:

• H₁: It was written or decisively guided by an all-knowing, rational being with an interest in making truth clear to readers.
• H₂: It was written by ordinary humans with the cultural and intellectual limits of their time.

2) The Bible as One Text Among Many

We treat the Bible simply as one book among all possible books, so we can compare what features it has against what features we’d expect under each explanation.

3) Six Rational Hallmarks

The paper identifies six things that a perfectly rational, truth-focused author would almost certainly include:

1. A clear definition of rational thinking and proportional belief.
2. A rejection of believing things without good evidence.
3. Teaching on how belief strength should vary with the strength of evidence.
4. Encouragement to doubt when evidence is weak.
5. A rejection of rewarding strong belief when the evidence doesn’t support it.
6. Clear instruction on common mistakes in reasoning and thinking.

4) Bundling the Hallmarks

If a text has all six of these features, it “passes” the rational benchmark test.

5) What We See in the Bible

When we look at the Bible, none of these six features are present.

6) Opposite Features

Not only are the benchmarks missing, the Bible contains three features pointing the opposite way:

1. Faith (believing without sufficient evidence) is praised.
2. Belief is presented as all-or-nothing—either faithful or not—rather than on a spectrum.
3. Doubt is treated as a vice, not as a reasonable response when evidence is lacking.

7) Full Evidence Profile

The “evidence” we’re working with is both the absence of all six benchmarks and the presence of these three contrary features.

8) Predictions from Divine Authorship

If the Bible were written by a perfectly rational, truth-focused deity, we would expect each of the six benchmarks to be there and each of the three contrary features to be missing.

9) Predictions from Human Authorship

If the Bible were written by humans of the ancient world, we would expect the opposite: little or no systematic rational teaching, but plenty of faith-promotion and discouragement of doubt.

10–11) Likelihood of the Evidence

Each missing benchmark is much less likely if H₁ is true than if H₂ is true. Likewise, each contrary feature is far less likely if H₁ is true than if H₂ is true.

12) Combining the Evidence

When we put all these differences together, the combined pattern we see in the Bible is vastly more likely if H₂ is true than if H₁ is true.

13–14) Bayesian Update

Using Bayes’s theorem, the prior odds we have for H₁ vs. H₂ should be multiplied by this likelihood ratio. Because the ratio is very small, our confidence in H₁ should drop, unless we started with an extremely high prior belief in H₁.

15) Overall Weight of Evidence

Each missing benchmark and each contrary feature pushes the evidence against H₁. Adding them all up produces a strong net weight in favor of H₂.

16) Core Predictive Difference

The heart of the argument is that a rational, truth-focused deity would strongly tend to produce a book with these benchmarks, while human authors wouldn’t.

17) What the Evidence Shows

The actual Bible fails all six benchmarks and has all three contrary features.

18) Comparative Judgment

Given this pattern, the human-authorship hypothesis is the better explanation.

19) Rational Belief Adjustment

A rational thinker should shift their belief toward human authorship by an amount proportional to how much less likely this evidence is under H₁.

20) Broader Implication

If H₂ is true, then societies are better served by promoting evidence-proportional belief rather than faith.

21) Condensed Claim

The short version: The way the Bible treats belief is far more likely under human authorship than divine authorship.

22) Feature-by-Feature Mapping

The argument explicitly ties each absence and contrary feature to its impact on the likelihood ratio, making the case evidence-driven rather than rhetorical.

23) Final Conclusion

Given the observed features of the Bible, human authorship is the more probable explanation.

---

◉ Prose Version:

The argument begins by framing two competing explanations for the Bible’s authorship. The first, H₁, holds that it was written or decisively guided by an all-knowing, rational being intent on making truth clear to readers. The second, H₂, posits that it was authored by ordinary humans working within the cultural and intellectual limitations of their era. By treating the Bible as one text among many possible texts, we can compare its actual features against what each hypothesis would predict.

The paper identifies six rational hallmarks that a perfectly rational, truth-focused author would be expected to include: a clear definition of rational thinking and proportional belief; an explicit rejection of believing without sufficient evidence; instruction on how belief strength should vary with the strength of evidence; encouragement to doubt when evidence is weak; rejection of rewarding strong belief when evidence does not support it; and explicit guidance on common reasoning errors and cognitive biases. If a text contains all six of these features, it satisfies the rational benchmark test.

Upon examining the Bible, however, none of these benchmarks appear. More than that, the text contains three features that run in the opposite direction: it praises faith as belief without sufficient evidence, it frames belief as binary—either one is faithful or not—rather than as a spectrum, and it portrays doubt as a vice rather than as a reasonable response when evidence is lacking. The evidence under consideration is therefore the complete absence of all six benchmarks combined with the presence of these three contrary features.

From the standpoint of divine authorship, we would expect the benchmarks to be present and the contrary features absent. From the standpoint of human authorship in an ancient cultural context, we would expect the opposite: little or no systematic rational instruction, along with promotion of faith and discouragement of doubt. Each missing benchmark is much less likely if H₁ is true than if H₂ is true, and each contrary feature is likewise far less likely under H₁ than H₂. When combined, these differences make the overall evidence pattern vastly more probable on H₂ than on H₁.

Applying Bayes’s theorem, our prior odds for H₁ versus H₂ should be multiplied by this likelihood ratio. Because the ratio is very small, our confidence in H₁ should decrease significantly, unless we began with an extremely high prior belief in H₁. Each missing benchmark and each contrary feature pushes the evidence against H₁, and together they create a strong cumulative case for H₂. The central predictive asymmetry is that a rational, truth-focused deity would be expected to produce a book that included these benchmarks, whereas ordinary human authors would not.

Given that the actual Bible fails to meet any of the six benchmarks and contains all three contrary features, the human-authorship hypothesis fits the observed facts better. A rational thinker should adjust their belief toward H₂ in proportion to how much less likely this evidence is under H₁. If H₂ is correct, then societies benefit more from promoting belief proportionate to evidence than from valorizing faith. In short, the Bible’s treatment of belief is far more consistent with human authorship than with divine authorship, and this conclusion follows directly from the comparative likelihoods of the observed evidence under each hypothesis.

---