The Indistinguishable Bible

Two issues need to be dealt with before I, finally, hopefully, I wish, I hope, can get back to reviewing The Christian Delusion: the epistemic status of testimony (of which there is no end of confusion) and the "divine detection" objection to the Bible. I'll deal with the latter here (although I've already addressed it, I'll happily do it again. One more coat of paint on the wall don't hurt anybody and I've got gallons).

The Indistinguishable Bible?

Here's AcesLucky:

"Do you believe that God’s effect on the Bible is such that the end result is indistinguishable from a work that could be developed wholly through the language, culture, and knowledge of the people of the time?"

I don't even know what "God's effect" is supposed to mean. This is a poorly formed question. But let's work with the poor form for a minute and say "yes". So what would happen? Presumably the idea is that if you have two possible explanations and 2 requires fewer explanatory posits than 1, then you ought to hold 2 rather than 1. Thus if "God's effect" is indistinguishable from no divine effect, you ought to believe there is no divine effect.

As I already pointed out, we can try this out in other areas. Let's consider matter:

"Do you believe that a world of minds, sensations and substance (matter) is indistinguishable from a world of minds and sensation but no substance?"

Needless to say, it is by definition. (If you're still not clear on that, read George Berkeley's "Three Dialogues" slowly.) So by this reasoning if we ought to reject God's authorship of the Bible then we ought also to reject matter. Since most people don't even consider idealism a live option, there is surely something amiss with this rather baldly stated principle. MGT2 writes to those posing the indetectability challenge: "you seek to use methods of testing that are unsuitable for supernatural agencies." I'd go further: you seek to use epistemic modes of reasoning which, if applied consistently, would undermine rational belief in matter.

Rather than wrestle anymore with that principle which terminates in idealism, let's set it aside and try a reformulation of AL's question:

"Do you believe that the Bible has features or characteristics which require a reasonable person to conclude that it could not have been produced wholly through natural means?"

No, I don't think it has those kinds of features. Reasonable people can disagree about the status of the Bible just like they disagree about whether God exists or whether Obama is a good president or about whether we ought to have steak or seafood for dinner.

Resurrection and a Book worthy of consideration

I have noted before some of the historical evidence for the resurrection including the empty tomb and the conviction of Jesus' followers that (a) he had appeared to them posthumously and (b) he had been raised rather than merely appearing as a ghostlike apparition. Given the historical proximity of purported resurrection event to the earliest testimony (in the case of the creedal forumation in 1 Cor. 15:3-5 we're looking at perhaps three years) there is no time at all for legend to develop in the core testimony/beliefs of the church. Nor does this belief have an antecedent in Jewish thought (there was no resurrection until the end of history). And a revolutionary messiah who is crucified by the Romans is the ultimate shameful failure so there were no psychological factors at work to "prime the pump" for people to see a "raised" messiah that wasn't really there. Conspiracy fails as an explanation for multiple reasons including lack of motive (the early Christians were persecuted, not praised). And the swoon theory died a natural death back when it was proposed two centuries ago.

So we have multiple distinct examples of first century attestation, some as close as a few years to the purported events, which serve as the genesis for a unique movement of the ancient world. The historical evidence for the resurrection does not provide adequate evidence to believe that the 66 books of the Protestant canon are plenarily inspired and inerrant. But as I said, it does increase the plausibilty of claims about the Bible, the sacred text of the Christian community, having some sort of special significance.

Comparison. Your neighbor is an artist. You notice well dressed people pulling up to his studio driving in Ferraris and Masaratis and leaving with samples of his artwork. That wouldn't provide you with sufficient evidence to believe he was the most important artist working today. But it would provide you with sufficient evidence to go over to the studio and take a closer look.