On Babinski's Evidential Burden: Lessons from the Tentative Atheist

Hey, I'm on my way out for the evening but before I go I thought I would do a Thomas the Tank Engine and get some of you troublesome trucks back on the right track.

Here's the problem. Now I'm being asked: "Gimme gimme gimme some evidence to believe the bible is divine revelation!"

That's a nice request for another day, but alas it diverts us from the present topic which is concerned with the inadequacy of Dr. Babinski's anti-apologetic (or rather, his atheistic apologetic).

To illustrate the problem, let's reverse roles. In our doppleganger universe the blog is by the "Tentative Atheist" and he is reviewing a book called The Atheist Delusion which, as you might expect, purports to show that atheism is a delusion. The present chapter under review is by a Christian apologist named Rabidski. Dr. Rabidski's essay attempts to argue that atheists should accept the Bible as God's revelation.

Unfortunately, Rabidski proceeds to offer a series of arguments based on the OT fulfillment of prophecy in the NT. For instance, he interprets Hosea 11:1 and Isaiah 53 as finding their prophetic fulfillment in Christ and he claims that this illustrates the divine authority of the text.

What do you suppose the Tentative Atheist will say in response to Rabidski's essay? How about this: you haven't provided any reason why an atheist would accept the authority and inspiration of the Bible because an atheist will not accept the NT's interpretation of OT passages to begin with!

Right on Tentative Atheist! You nailed it! Rabidski's argument is fine as an internal argument for those who already accept the inspiration of the NT. But it provides no apologetic punch for those who don't.

Folks, we're in the same situation. Babinski undertook a specific task. It wasn't to preach to the converted. It was to provide reasons to believe that the Bible is not God's inspired word, reasons which would have some probative force for those who presently accept that it is. On that count his argument is no more threatening than a scowling Hello Kitty! doll. (In other words, not very.)

Now there have been some arguments offered in my blog. For instance, there have been claims that the Bible must be inerrant in the literal sense (that is, the meaning intended by the human author). Because it is not, it is therefore not inspired. There are also claims that any inspired text must include descriptions of the natural world that are accepted by early twenty first century science. For instance, we should expect to find an equation like E=mc 2 in the Psalms or Isaiah.

Like most Christians, I find no reason to accept those arguments. That is, I find it implausible, even silly, to claim that any inspired text must include these properties. I'll tell you why if you like. But for now, I have an eight year old waiting to go for ice cream.