Inerrancy - a deeply unbiblical and idolatrous concept

How true?

Nowadays there probably aren't that many Christians who really believe the bible is true in every detail. However, somewhat paradoxically, if you challenge them on this, they (well, lots of 'em) will circle the wagons and declare that it is indeed completely "God's Word", and that if it disagrees with the findings of science, history, common sense, reason, and even what people would ordinarily judge to be "true", then so much the worse for the competition.


But this is a tricky position for the (theistic) Christian. There is nothing in the recorded (or attributed) words of Jesus that can really support such an extreme bibliolatry, and - worse - if people take that view, then they are left unable to properly understand what is written in the bible, and the beliefs and culture of the people over the 800 years or so during which it was cobbled together. The process of compilation is part of the message, and part of the fun and value of the thing, for Christ's sake! Why turn it into some primitive oracle, and rob it of its humanity?

As a Christian Atheist, it's pretty obvious that I cannot hold to an inerrantist position - but even when I was a theist, the suggestion was absurd. In order to make it "inerrant", one had to dream up the most ridiculous convoluted nonsenses, that then dehumanised the authors, wrenched the stories and worldviews from their historical contexts, and made the "God" of the bible a buffoon. Indeed, biblical inerrancy was (in my view - and it continues to be my view) a very deep and troublesome form of blasphemy.

Let's look at it another way. If there are contradictions in the bible, outright errors, fictions, fables, fantasies and fudges - does that decrease its value? I would suggest not. I would instead suggest that the bible gives us a very clear view that religion should really have nothing whatever to do with truth claims (or even gods), but about community. A shared narrative that gives us a toolkit for describing the problems that life throws at us wee humans.

So, if you're sitting in a church, listening to some priest or pastor rabbitting on about the amazing bible, you can remind yourself that he or she is missing something really important. Perhaps the most important thing of all. But you won't be thanked for pointing it out.

The Parable of the Cube and the Crazy People

And Jesus said unto his disciples: Sit down, chaps. You're going to love this one.

A man was walking on the road from Capernaum to Ginosar, and waxed thirstful. He stopped at a well, and had a drink. Beside the well lay a Rubik's cube which was jumbled up, and he picked it up and looked at it. As he started to twist it, behold, a Pharisee leapt out of the bushes (there were some bushes beside the well - did I mention that? Well there were.)

What doest thou, thou blasphemer?! yelled the Pharisee. Dost thou not know that this is the Holy Cube, and has been given unto us as it is, never to be touched, for it is perfect?!

Your arse, said the man. It's all jumbled up - look, there are blues and greens and yellows and whites and reds and oranges all over the shop - it's hopelessly jumbled. But I am a very clever chap, and I can *do* Rubik's cubes - I can solve these babies oh yeah.

But the Pharisee waxed ever angrier. No, thou evildoer - the cube is perfect, and can never be touched. Here. Give it back. Now feck off.

The man walked on until he came to another well (hot day, still thirsty, no water bottles back then, OK?). Beside it was another Rubik's cube, much the same as the last one, except for a couple of twists. He picked it up and was about to start solving it when out jumps an Essene (bushes here too), and demands that he stop.

But your cube is jumbled! said the man.

Yes, said the Essene, but to fix it you must not twist it around, for that would be blasphemy. Instead you must peel off all the stickers and put them on in the pattern of holiness.

Which would be? inquired the man, who was becoming a little perplexed at the misplaced reverence shown to this object.

It's a secret, said the Essene, grabbing the cube. Now feck off.

And feck off he did. At the next well, he picked up the next cube, and yadda yadda and out jumps a Nazarene.

[Hey, isn't that us? said Simon Peter. Yes, said Jesus, but shut up. This is important.]

This cube is as it is because of the Fall, said the Nazarene. You're just making it worse.

Making it worse? said the man - it's a mess!

Yes, but the Son of Man will come on the clouds of heaven and solve the cube!

But I can solve it now; I just have to do a load of twists and rotations, and it'll get there.

No, said the Nazarene, the Son of Man will solve it with one twist.

Like feck he will, said the man. Look, I appreciate your beliefs, but you have no evidence for them.

The evidence is in the messed up state of the cube! said the Nazarene. What was perfect is now imperfect.

Why will none of you let me try to solve the cube? asked the man.

Don't you get it? said the Nazarene. You cannot solve the cube by yourself, other than by taking it apart and putting it back together again.

How do you know? said the man.

It is folly to try! said the Nazarene. Now give me my cube and bugger off.

And the man walked on.

[Simon Peter said: Lord, what the feck was that all about?
Jesus replied: Give me a while - I'm working on it, OK?]

Good cop or bad cop?

Well, it's a puzzler for sure. I'm an atheist; I regard myself as what Richard Dawkins might call a "Cultural Christian", but I sorta prefer the term "Christian Atheist". Personally I do not go to church, but I don't rip the head off people who do, and indeed that group would include a lot of my closest friends and family (theists and atheists alike). I recognise the historical legacy left by Christianity, even if the historical basis for the resurrection (that sine qua non of the whole shebang, according to a certain Saul Paulus) has been shown to be non-existent.

Deep down - or not even that deep - I do not feel that theism and a scientific outlook are compatible. I recognise that many scientists are theists, but that simply shows us that people can internally tolerate a disconnect, and that is hardly Big News. The reason for the incompatibility is not that science "disproves god" - I accept that it doesn't and indeed cannot absolutely rule out the existence of a goddy thing - it is much simpler than that.

Science cannot tolerate authority.

As a scientist, if the bible tells me that such-and-such happened at such-and-such a point in history, it may or may not be telling the truth, but the status of any such statement is that of a claim. These claims may or may not have supporting or contradictory evidence. I am in no position to accept them as true, and indeed I must (as a scientist) be at liberty to reject them if they conflict with the evidence.

Which is a problem for the Theistic Christian, because if we apply proper methods of historical analysis to the biblical claims, the scientific methodology behind archaeology, and the rational approach demanded by science, we find that events such as the virgin birth or the resurrection do not only not stack up, they are refuted by evidence from within the bible itself.

So how should we handle things when someone gets up in a pulpit or other public platform, and sounds off about some matter or other (such as homosexuality, for instance), using the bible as "authority", when ALL of us atheists, whether Christian or otherwise, REJECT that authority? Should we make an issue of it, and contradict the speaker, thereby causing tremulousness among those who demand "Christian unity", or should we simply accept it, smile benignly, let it pass, and privately internally pity the poor sap who is so deluded.

Good cop or bad cop?

I'll admit to playing both roles from time to time, but then I can afford to do so, since I don't have a church to be kicked out of. Any experiences anyone would like to share?

[Cartoon from Shelley the Republican. Make of that what you will! ;-)]