Tag Archives: Tom Howe

Morality, Philosophy, Truth

What Is Objectivity? Part 2

Leave a comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt

In part 1 of this post, we looked at contemporary notions of objectivity, as reported by philosopher Tom Howe.   In part 2 we continue to flesh out the concept of objectivity.

Tom Howe quotes philosopher Mary Hawkesworth:

In the context of philosophical and scientific investigations, an objective account implies a grasp of the actual qualities and relations of objects as they exist independent of the inquirer’s thoughts and desires regarding them. In the spheres of ethics, law, and administration, objectivity suggests impersonal and impartial standards and decision procedures that produce disinterested and equitable judgments. Objectivity, then, promises to free us from distortion, bias, and error in intellectual inquiry and from arbitrariness, self-interest, and caprice in ethical, legal, and administrative decisions.

We see the idea of existence “independent of the inquirer’s thoughts and desires regarding them.”  The moral fact, “It is wrong to torture a child for fun,” is objective if it is true independent of the inquirer’s thoughts.  Whether a person believes this statement is true or not is irrelevant to its truth.

In addition, Hawkesworth introduces the concept of “impersonal and impartial standards.”  The statement, “It is wrong to torture a child for fun,” is objective if it can be judged by a standard which is impersonal and impartial.

Howe finishes his survey of contemporary views on objectivity with the following summary:

First, there is a recurring theme . . . that in some sense objectivity involves the notion of a neutral judgment that strives to be free from all biases, prejudices, presuppositions, preconceived ideas, preunderstandings, or other factors that might distort one’s understanding or conclusions.

Objectivity is almost universally equated with what Richard Bernstein calls “objectivism,” which he defines as “a basic conviction that there is or must be some permanent, ahistorical matrix or framework to which we can ultimately appeal in determining the nature of rationality, knowledge, truth, reality, goodness, or rightness.”

Objectivity, then, is about judgment without the undue influence of bias or prejudice.  The worldview of the judge is taken out of the judgment as much as possible.  The judge is to tell it like it is.

In a second, and arguably more important sense, objectivity is, as Richard Bernstein states, a “permanent, ahistorical matrix or framework to which we can ultimately appeal” to on issues of morality, truth, and knowledge.  Any person that denies that this ahistorical and permanent framework exists is thus denying that objectivity exists.  Ironically, the person who claims that ahistorical objectivity does not exist believes this to be true for all time.  To deny objectivity is to affirm it.

Morality, Philosophy, Truth

What Is Objectivity? Part 1

10 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

We’ve recently featured several blog posts centered around the idea of moral objectivity.  Objectivity is also a concept that can be applied to truth, knowledge, interpretation, and even beauty.  Although we’ve tried to carefully define objectivity versus subjectivity, it might be worth revisiting this concept to see what contemporary thinkers have to say about it.

Philosopher Tom Howe provides a brief, but insightful survey of several contemporary views on objectivity in his book Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation. Howe starts things off with a quote from the famous agnostic Bertrand Russell:

Subjectively, every philosopher appears to himself to be engaged in the pursuit of something which may be called ‘truth.’ Philosophers may differ as to the definition of ‘truth,’ but at any rate it is something objective, something which, in some sense, everybody ought to accept.

We start with the idea that something is objective if it is something that everybody ought to accept.  If we take the clear moral truth, “It is wrong to torture a child for fun,” this statement would be objectively true if it is a statement that everyone ought to accept.

Howe then describes Paul Helm’s “ontological” objectivity.  According to Howe, “This is basically the question of whether the extra-mental reality exists apart from human perception or is the construct of the human mind.  As Helm puts it, ‘Does the character of the world change with the very fact that we are interpreting it?'”

Here we see another important aspect of objectivity.  Something is objective if it exists “apart from human perception.”  Taking our example again, the moral truth,  “It is wrong to torture a child for fun,” would be objective if the statement was true regardless of whether any human being perceived it to be true.  In other words, if all human beings went extinct tomorrow, it would still be objectively true that torturing a child for fun is wrong.

Here is an interesting thought experiment.  If an intelligent alien race came to earth and began torturing human children, would we react with moral outrage and accuse them of atrocious immoral acts, or would we say to ourselves, “That’s a shame they are torturing kids, but they obviously just have a different moral code than we do.  It must be morally acceptable, under their moral system, for them to torture human children.”

I think that we would obviously be morally outraged.  In fact, this very situation, or something like it, is portrayed in dozens of science fiction movies where intelligent aliens attack and/or torture humans.  The humans in these movies are almost always portrayed as holding the aliens morally culpable, but if moral facts only exist in human perception, then it would be truly bizarre to hold aliens morally accountable.

They might have their own moral facts, or they may perceive no moral facts at all.  Why is it, at least in the movies, humans always assume that hostile aliens have the same moral sensibilities we do?  I submit that it is because the writers of these movie scripts, just like the rest of us, assume moral facts exist apart from human perception.

Attacking aliens aside, this aspect of objectivity seems to confuse many atheists, because they fail to see how something like a moral fact could exist without human minds perceiving it to be true.  For theists, of course, truth also exists in the mind of God, so we have no problem with moral facts being objective in this sense.  If you are a non-theist, you could posit that moral truths exist as brute, fundamental facts of the universe, but this answer merely leads inevitably to the question of why the universe would come furnished with moral facts.

In our next post, we will continue to look at the notion of objectivity.

Bible Interpretation

Are All Interpretations Equally Valid?

13 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Relativism is a constant and ever-present danger these days.  Today I’m speaking, in particular, about the interpretation of biblical texts.  When we open the Bible and read, what happens if we interpret the text differently from those around us?

There are scholars today who claim that nobody has the correct interpretation of a text, because there is no single correct interpretation.   In his book, Objectivity in Biblical Interpretation, Philosopher Tom Howe quotes writer James K. A. Smith as an example of this position:

To privilege one reading as normative (the one correct interpretation) would be to privilege one contingent situationality or tradition over another— a move that would be impossible to justify precisely because of the locatedness of any such justification. There is not a reading that is the reading of the world or a text.

Smith is saying that the tradition and situation in which a reader resides colors his interpretation.  Since each of us lives in a different situation and tradition, then each of our interpretations of a text are different, and none of them can claim to be the one correct interpretation.

Is this true?  Howe strongly disagrees:

According to this approach, conflicts are generated because of the differing “situationality” and “traditionality” that indicate the impossibility of a “privileged reading” or of the very existence of “the one correct interpretation.” . . .  Is there no such thing as the correct or the right interpretation of a text? If there is no “right” or “correct” interpretation, then the problem of conflicting interpretations seems to lose its meaning.

Conflicting interpretations create a problem only if there is an interpretation that is the right one. The fact of conflicting interpretations seems to create difficulty only if one attempts to judge between them in order to arrive at the meaning of the text. In fact, everyone who comments on this question believes that his own interpretation of the problem is the correct one. Even those who claim that differing historical, cultural, and linguistic situations render the notion of a privileged or normative or correct interpretation impossible believe that they have correctly interpreted the state of affairs.

They confidently declare that their interpretation of the problem of interpretation is the correct one, namely, that no one can claim to have “the one correct interpretation.” Those who claim that it is impossible “to privilege one reading as normative” privilege their own reading as normative. When, in the above quote, Smith declares, “There is not a reading that is the reading of the world or a text,” he presents his own reading of the world as the reading of the world.

Smith’s view ultimately self-destructs and, therefore, cannot be true.  Smith wants us to believe that his interpretation is the correct one, all the while arguing that no interpretation can be the correct one.  This is illustrative of the inner rot of any relativistic theory.  By denying objectivity, by denying that absolutes exist, the relativist always wants an exemption for their position.  They seem to be saying, “Every view out there is relative, except mine.  I am the only who has a privileged and absolute position.”

Interpretation of the Bible can be difficult, and there are cultural, linguistic, and historical barriers to overcome, but to throw in the towel and say that no interpretation is correct is simply self-defeating.  The correct interpretation is there, but we have to work for it.

Bible Interpretation, Difficult Bible Passages

How Should We Not Read the Bible? Part 6

2 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Continuing from part 5 of this series, we now turn to the final three mistakes critics make when alleging errors in the Bible.  These mistakes are taken from Norman Geisler and Tom Howe’s The Big Book of Bible Difficulties.

Mistake #15: Forgetting that Only the Original Text, Not Every Copy of Scripture, Is without Error.

Christians readily admit that there are copyist errors in the manuscript copies of the Old and New Testaments (see What is Inerrancy?).  But we also hold that inerrancy only applies to the original words written by the biblical authors.  Finding an error in one of the manuscript copies may or may not trace back to the original writing.  It is only through the science of textual criticism that this investigation can be done (see How Do Textual Critics Choose Among New Testament Manuscript Variants?).

If it can be shown that an original writing contains an alleged error, then the critic must show it is truly an error, that it contradicts well-established facts, something which traditional Christians hold has never been successfully done.

Mistake 16: Confusing General Statements with Universal Ones.

Geisler and Howe explain: “Critics often jump to the conclusion that unqualified statements admit of no exceptions. They seize upon verses that offer general truths and then point with glee to obvious exceptions. In so doing, they forget that such statements are only intended to be generalizations.”

The Book of Proverbs, for example, contains numerous general statements of wisdom, but these proverbial sayings are not universally true.  Proverbs 22:6 says, “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.”  Even though it is generally true, many of us can point to examples of children who, even though they were raised in a strong Christian home, rebel and never straighten out their lives.

Mistake 17: Forgetting that Later Revelation Supersedes Previous Revelation.

In God’s dealings with mankind, as recorded in the Bible, he progressively revealed more and more of himself as history advanced.  God tested mankind in the Garden of Eden with a tree, but this test is no longer in effect.  The commands to sacrifice animals for the forgiveness of sins was in effect for a time, but once Jesus died for mankind’s sins, the animal sacrifices were no longer necessary.  Jesus was revealed as the Son of God, but only to the people of his time, and not to those who lived before him.

Some critics point to later revelation and claim that it contradicts earlier revelation, but this accusation cannot be sustained if the “error” in question was a command given for a specific time period.  Again, God has dealt with mankind in many different ways throughout history.  This fact does not prove that errors exist in the Bible.

Conclusion:

All Christians are well advised to memorize the 17 mistakes that critics make when alleging errors in the Bible.  Truth be told, Christians sometimes make these same mistakes.  We may not accuse the Bible of error, but we often forget that the books of the Bible were written by human writers, in different literary styles, and with differing perspectives.  These 6 blog posts, therefore, are not just a call for critics to stop improperly maligning the Bible, but a call for Christians to better understand the Word of God that has been handed down to them.

Bible Interpretation, Difficult Bible Passages

How Should We Not Read the Bible? Part 5

1 Comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Continuing from part 4 of this series, we now turn to more of the mistakes critics make when alleging errors in the Bible.  These mistakes are taken from Norman Geisler and Tom Howe’s The Big Book of Bible Difficulties.

Mistake #11: Presuming that the Bible Approves of All it Records.

Not everything recorded in the Bible is approved by the Bible.  The Bible recounts the sinful acts of many people throughout its pages, but it does not promote these sinful acts.  Critics will often point to polygamy, deception, or any number of other immoral acts in the Bible to prove that God actively promotes those acts.  These things are recorded so that the readers of the Bible may learn from the mistakes of others.

Mistake 12: Forgetting that the Bible Uses Non-technical, Everyday Language.

The biblical authors used common, everyday language to convey truth.  They were not attempting to write in scholarly or scientific terms.  As Geisler and Howe state, “The use of observational, nonscientific language is not unscientific, it is merely prescientific. The Scriptures were written in ancient times by ancient standards, and it would be anachronistic to superimpose modern scientific standards upon them.”

Mistake 13: Assuming that Round Numbers Are False.

Much like the previous mistake, it is unreasonable to expect biblical authors, in a prescientific age, to use precise numbers with several significant digits.  Numbers are sometimes rounded off and there is nothing deceptive or false about this practice.  The Bible is not a math textbook.

Mistake 14: Neglecting to Note that the Bible Uses Different Literary Devices.

There are numerous literary styles used in the Bible, including parable, poetry, allegory, historical narrative, apocalypse, personal letter, epistle, song, and others.  These different literary styles make use of metaphor, simile, satire, hyperbole, and other figures of speech.  It is the job of the reader to recognize when a figure of speech is being employed.  “Obviously when the Bible speaks of the believer resting under the shadow of God’s ‘wings’ (Ps. 36:7), it does not mean that God is a feathered bird.”

Three more mistakes to go…

Bible Interpretation, Difficult Bible Passages

How Should We Not Read the Bible? Part 4

1 Comment

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Continuing from part 3 of this series, we now turn to more of the mistakes critics make when alleging errors in the Bible.  These mistakes are taken from Norman Geisler and Tom Howe’s The Big Book of Bible Difficulties.

Mistake #8: Assuming that a Partial Report is a False Report.

Sometimes multiple authors in the Bible describe the same historical events, but not in the exact same way.  Each report is a partial report from a particular point of view.  Critics attack the biblical authors for recounting different and divergent facts about the same event, but conversely would accuse the authors of collusion or plagiarism if they recounted the exact same facts in the exact same way.

For example, just because the four Gospel writers recorded different details about the life of Jesus does not mean that they are being deceptive.  Every historian chooses particular facts to convey to his readers, depending on what his purpose is.  It is completely unrealistic to expect anything different from the biblical authors.

Mistake #9: Demanding that NT Citations of the OT Always Be Exact Quotations.

Critics sometimes point to NT citations of the OT as proof of error because the citations do not exactly match the words of the OT.  This, however, does not follow.  It was commonly acceptable, and still is today, to paraphrase someone else’s statement as long as the meaning of the statement is conserved, even if the exact words are not.  As Geisler and Howe state, “The same meaning can be conveyed without using the same verbal expressions.”

Mistake 10: Assuming that Divergent Accounts Are False Ones.

This mistake closely resemble mistake number #8, but stresses that not only are partial reports not necessarily false, but neither are divergent accounts.  Again, just because two biblical authors record differing details of one historical event does not mean that they are mistaken or deceitful.

A good example is the account of Judas Iscariot’s death.  “Matthew (27:5) informs us that Judas hanged himself. But Luke says that ‘he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out’ (Acts 1:18). Once more, these accounts differ, but they are not mutually exclusive. If Judas hanged himself on a tree over the edge of a cliff and his body fell on sharp rocks below, then his entrails would gush out just as Luke vividly describes.”

Seven more mistakes to go…

Bible Interpretation, Difficult Bible Passages

How Should We Not Read the Bible? Part 3

5 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Continuing from part 2 of this series, we now turn to more of the mistakes critics make when alleging errors in the Bible.  These mistakes are taken from Norman Geisler and Tom Howe’s The Big Book of Bible Difficulties.

Mistake #6: Basing a Teaching on an Obscure Passage.

Some passages in the Bible are difficult to understand because the author used a word which isn’t found anywhere else in the Bible.  In cases like this, Bible translators try to determine the meaning from context, but sometimes they just don’t know for sure.

Some passages in the Bible contain well-known words, but we may not know to what those words refer.  An example of this can be found in 1 Cor. 15:29 where Paul speaks of those “baptized for the dead.”

Geisler and Howe ask, “Is he referring to the baptizing of live representatives to ensure salvation for dead believers who were not baptized (as Mormons claim)? Or, is he referring to others being baptized into the church to fill the ranks of those who have passed on? Or, is he referring to a believer being baptized “for” (i.e., “with a view to”) his own death and burial with Christ? Or, to something else?”

When we aren’t sure about the meaning, there are some guidelines to keep in mind:

First, we should not build a doctrine on an obscure passage. The rule of thumb in Bible interpretation is “the main things are the plain things, and the plain things are the main things.” This is called the perspicuity (clearness) of Scripture. If something is important, it will be clearly taught in Scripture and probably in more than one place. Second, when a given passage is not clear, we should never conclude that it means something that is opposed to another plain teaching of Scripture. God does not make mistakes in His Word; we make mistakes in trying to understand it.

Mistake 7:  Forgetting that the Bible Is a Human Book with Human Characteristics.

Quoting Geisler and Howe:

With the exception of small sections, like the Ten Commandments which were “written with the finger of God” (Ex. 31:18), the Bible was not verbally dictated. The writers were not secretaries of the Holy Spirit. They were human composers employing their own literary styles and idiosyncrasies.

These human authors sometimes used human sources for their material (Josh. 10:13; Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 15:33; Titus 1:12). In fact, every book of the Bible is the composition of a human writer—about forty of them in all.

The Bible also manifests different human literary styles, from the mournful meter of Lamentations to the exalted poetry of Isaiah; from the simple grammar of John to the complex Greek of the Book of Hebrews.

Scripture also manifests human perspectives. David spoke in Psalm 23 from a shepherd’s perspective. Kings is written from a prophetic vantage point, and Chronicles from a priestly point of view. Acts manifests an historical interest and 2 Timothy a pastor’s heart. Writers speak from an observer’s standpoint when they write of the sun rising or setting (Josh. 1:15).

They also reveal human thought patterns, including memory lapses (1 Cor. 1:14–16), as well as human emotions (Gal. 4:14).

The Bible discloses specific human interests. For example, Hosea possessed a rural interest, Luke a medical concern, and James a love of nature.

But like Christ, the Bible is completely human, yet without error. Forgetting the humanity of Scripture can lead to falsely impugning its integrity by expecting a level of expression higher than that which is customary to a human document.

More to come!

Bible Interpretation, Difficult Bible Passages

How Should We Not Read the Bible? Part 2

2 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

Continuing from part 1 of this series, we now turn to more of the mistakes critics make when alleging errors in the Bible.  These mistakes are taken from Norman Geisler and Tom Howe’s The Big Book of Bible Difficulties.

Mistake #3: Confusing Our Fallible Interpretations with God’s Infallible Revelation.

The words of the Bible are infallible, meaning they cannot be broken (see John 10:35).  We can trust everything in the Bible because it is God’s Word and God cannot err.  However, humans must interpret the words of the Bible and our interpretations are not infallible.  We can make mistakes when we handle the Word of God.  Geisler and Howe explain that “the Bible cannot be mistaken, but we can be mistaken about the Bible. The meaning of the Bible does not change, but our understanding of its meaning does.”

Likewise, we must all be careful of pitting scientific findings against Scripture.  Both science and Scripture require fallible human interpretation and so both are open to error.  It is impossible for true scientific interpretations to contradict true interpretations of Scripture, so when we think there is a contradiction, we know that one of the interpretations is false.

Mistake #4: Failing to Understand the Context of the Passage.

No word, sentence, paragraph, or chapter of the Bible can be understood without its context.  In fact, this is true of any written document.  Since modern Bibles include verse and chapter numbers, many readers freely quote phrases and sentences in isolation without anchoring them in their surrounding context.  Because the Bible is so easy to quote (from verses and chapters), critics commonly ignore the context of biblical passages and draw improper conclusions from what they read.

Mistake #5: Neglecting to Interpret Difficult Passages in the Light of Clear Ones.

According to Geisler and Howe, “Some passages of Scripture are hard to understand. Sometimes the difficulty is due to their obscurity. At other times, the difficulty is because passages appear to be teaching something contrary to what some other part of Scripture is clearly teaching.”  In these cases, the best course of action is to take what is clearly taught in Scripture and interpret the difficult passages through what is clearly taught.

More in part 3…


Bible Interpretation, Difficult Bible Passages

How Should We Not Read the Bible? Part 1

5 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt

One of the most common accusations I hear from skeptics is that the Bible is full of errors and contradictions.  How do you and I, as Christians who believe the Bible is without error, deal with these claims?

Several years ago, I purchased a book by Norman Geisler and Tom Howe called When Critics Ask, now re-published under the name, The Big Book of Bible Difficulties.  This book has been a loyal companion to me when skeptics confront me with a Bible difficulty which I have not analyzed before.  If you interact with skeptics of Christianity, I highly recommend this book to you.

One of the most important sections of the book is in the Introduction, where Geisler and Howe list 17 mistakes that critics of the Bible make when they attempt to cite errors.  The next few blog posts will briefly discuss these mistakes so that we can better understand how not to read the Bible.

Mistake #1: Assuming that the Unexplained Is Not Explainable.

There are, indeed, many passages in the Bible which are difficult to understand.  Nobody who has read the Bible could say otherwise.  But for those who take the Bible seriously, its contents have been vindicated many times throughout history as more information has become available through the fields of history, archaeology, the physical sciences, and even linguistics.

Geisler and Howe cite a couple examples of how critics have been proven wrong in the past:

For example, critics once proposed that Moses could not have written the first five books of the Bible because there was no writing in Moses’ day. Now we know that writing was in existence a couple of thousand years or more before Moses. Likewise, critics once believed that the Bible was wrong in speaking of the Hittite people, since they were totally unknown to historians. Now, all historians know of their existence by way of their library that was found in Turkey.

Since we have seen the Bible proven right so many times in the past, it is reasonable to believe that those things in the Bible which are today unexplained, will some day be explained.

Mistake #2: Presuming the Bible Guilty Until Proven Innocent

Critics often begin with the supposition that the Bible is wrong until it is proven right, but this is an unfair approach.  Other books are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and so should the Bible be presumed innocent.  As a book that has shaped western civilization over the last 2,000 years and which contains some of the most important literature ever written, even critics need to treat it with respect and approach it with the same attitude that they would approach any other great literary work.

I will continue with Geisler and Howe’s list in the coming days.  Stick around!

Difficult Bible Passages

Who Are the "Sons of God" in Genesis 6:2?

13 Comments

Post Author: Bill Pratt 

The most popular view, among evangelicals, is that the “sons of God” mentioned in Gen. 6:2 are angels who seduce human women, the “daughters of men.”  This view, however, is highly problematic because Matthew 22:30 informs us that angels do not marry.

So who are the “sons of God?”  According to both Tom Howe and R. C. Sproul, two biblical scholars that I have great respect for, the “sons of God” are the very human descendants of Seth, who was the son that God gave Adam and Eve to replace Abel .  The “daughters of men” are the descendants of Cain, who was cursed by God for the murder of Abel.

Why do Howe and Sproul think this?  The preceding passages in chapter 4  focus on the two lines of Cain and Seth.  Cain’s descendants are wicked (note how Cain’s line ends with Lamech, who sings a song about murdering a man).  His female descendants are the “daughters of men.”  Seth’s son is Enosh,  and after he was born, “men began to call on the name of the Lord.”  Seth’s male descendants are the “sons of God,” the only hope for mankind to halt the slide into utter depravity.

So Gen. 6:2 is referring to the male descendants of Seth marrying the female descendants of Cain, marriage that would yield a harvest of greater and greater sin.  This is a continuing theme in the Old Testament where the people of Israel are warned not to marry pagans because of the religious syncretism that would surely occur.

The results of the “sons of God” marrying the “daughters of men” was disastrous for the human race, as humankind became so evil that God elected to bring a flood that would kill everyone except Noah and his family.