Testing Logical Consistency of Fundementalsim

Majin Gojira · Post by **Majin Gojira** » 2006-12-03 01:12pm

For a presentation in my Logic course, I am going to attempt to test the logical validity of Fundementalist beliefs (both Biblical and Koranic). Wong's Creationism/Science site is a great help for this (as are the links), but what I really need is a list of fundementalist beliefs in of itself. I've got some arguments (thanks in part to Dawkin's recent book), so that sections ready.

I just need some self-professed beliefs for comparison, and to see what they claim vs. what actually happens.

Feel free to weigh in on the subject.

D.Turtle · Post by **D.Turtle** » 2006-12-03 03:06pm

Here is an an article on Wikipedia that explains the origins of the word fundamental as a religious term.
These are the original "Five Fundamentals" outlined in the wikipedia article:
Inerrancy of the Scriptures
The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus
The doctrine of substitutionary atonement through God's grace and human faith (aka "Jesus died for your sins")
The bodily resurrection of Jesus
The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his premillennial second coming)

Also look at the link to the Niagara Bible Conference provided in that article.

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-12-03 05:24pm

The big one you're going to want to hit is scriptural inerrancy. It's not difficult to spend, say, five minutes dissecting a claim like "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."

Feil · Post by **Feil** » 2006-12-03 05:56pm

Assume: The Bible is Inerrant

1: 1 Samuel 23:6 says that "Abiathar [was] the son of Ahimelech."
2: 2 Samuel 8:17 says that "Ahimelech [was] the son of Abiathar."
3: Therefore Ahimelech was both the son and the father of Abiathar.
4: 3 is absurd.
5: Ergo, the premise is false.

Repeat this with any of the myriad biblical inconsistencies.

Lord Zentei · Post by **Lord Zentei** » 2006-12-03 07:02pm

The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy is a good resource.

It is also available online.

The Skeptic's Annotated Bible is also useful, though it is a lot less in-depth.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2006-12-04 12:54am

Feil wrote:Assume: The Bible is Inerrant

1: 1 Samuel 23:6 says that "Abiathar [was] the son of Ahimelech."
2: 2 Samuel 8:17 says that "Ahimelech [was] the son of Abiathar."
3: Therefore Ahimelech was both the son and the father of Abiathar.
4: 3 is absurd.
5: Ergo, the premise is false.

Repeat this with any of the myriad biblical inconsistencies.

As much as I HATE to defend religious stupidity...

Isn't is possible that Abiathar had a kid named Ahimelech and then Ahimelech named his kid after his own father?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2006-12-04 01:10am

Wikipedia is worthless. There are the real base assumptions of Christian fundamentalists:

"The Bible is completely literal."
"There is only one correct way to interpret the Bible."
"The Bible is completely inerrant."

Assumption #2 is not often mentioned explicitly, but it should not be forgotten. Every fundamentalist believes there is a single "correct" way to interpret the Bible. This is a weakness that is not often targeted but which opens up many avenues for attack. For example, what litmus test can be applied in order to determine that a particular interpretation is incorrect? What formal methodology exists for determining which interpretation is the correct one?

In any case, leaving all of that aside, it is fairly easy to show that these joint assumptions cannot work together. Even the tiniest nitpicky contradiction in the Bible represents disproof of those three assumptions, so you should never let a fundamentalist get away with ignoring what he views as a minor inconsistency. There are no minor inconsistencies when you are working with an assumption of perfection.

Darth Servo · Post by **Darth Servo** » 2006-12-05 12:39am

Solauren wrote:
Feil wrote:Assume: The Bible is Inerrant

1: 1 Samuel 23:6 says that "Abiathar [was] the son of Ahimelech."
2: 2 Samuel 8:17 says that "Ahimelech [was] the son of Abiathar."
3: Therefore Ahimelech was both the son and the father of Abiathar.
4: 3 is absurd.
5: Ergo, the premise is false.

Repeat this with any of the myriad biblical inconsistencies.
As much as I HATE to defend religious stupidity...

Isn't is possible that Abiathar had a kid named Ahimelech and then Ahimelech named his kid after his own father?

No, becuase according to 1 Sam 22:20, Ahimelech's dad was Ahitub.