Subjective Contamination

• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

Matt Bell suggests that the answer to the question "Did Jesus violate
the commandment to honor his father and mother" is subjective.  That
is, there is no actual truth of the matter, but it's instead a matter
of personal bias and opinion.  If I claim the answer to the question is
"yes," and the answer is in fact subjective, then there can be no
conclusive argument against my position.

One might define a "subjective" statement as "a statement whose truth
or falseness can be asserted without contradiction of any other
knowable fact", and an "objective" statement as "a statement whose
truth or falseness can be determined from other knowable facts and
valid rules of logic."

If my understanding of "subjective" and "objective" are at variance
with that of the world-at-large, or if this is not what Matt intended
by his statement, I hope someone will let me know.  But if Matt wishes
to claim that the answer to this question is in facts subjective, I
will concede it for the purposes of argument, because I believe such a
concession is damaging to the perfection of Jesus and the inerrancy of
the bible.  Consider the following two statements:
	1.  If the bible is inerrant, then Jesus did not violate the
	    commandment to honor his father and mother.
	1'. If Jesus was sinless, then Jesus did not violate the
	    commandment to honor his father and mother.
I think Matt also agrees with these two statements.

Add another statement:
	(2) Jesus did violate the commandment to honor his father and mother.
which I believe is (subjectively) true.

And we get the following arguments:
	1.  If the bible is inerrant, then Jesus did not violate the
	    commandment to honor his father and mother.
	2.  Jesus did violate the commandment to honor his father and mother.
	3.  Therefore, the bible is not inerrant (1,2)
and
	1'. If Jesus was perfect, then Jesus did not violate the commandment
	    to honor his father and mother.
	2.  Jesus did violate the commandment to honor his father and mother.
	3'. Therefore, the bible is not inerrant (1',2)
So, you see, to admit that (2) is in fact subjective, makes biblical inerrancy
either subjective or false.  That is, it can be at best subjectively true.
Some other argument might prove it conclusively false.

We could think of subjectivity as a "contaminating" force.  If we know
	4. If A then B
	5. B is subjective (That is, either "B" or "not B" can be asserted
	     alone without contradiction of any other known fact)
then we can conclude
	6. A is either false or subjective.
because if we assert that "B" is true, then we get
	4.  If A then B
	5'. B
there is no conclusion, this isn't a valid form of argument.  But if one
asserts "not B", we get
	4.   If A then B
	5''. not B
	6''. Therefore, not A (4, 5'')
In the first case, we know nothing about the truth of A---but there could be
some other argument which relied on non-subjective premises which still showed
it to be wrong.

It's contradictory to assert
	7.  If A then B
	8.  B is subjective
	9.  If Q then A
	10. Q
because 
	9.  If Q then A
	10. Q
	11. Therefore, A (9, 10)
	7.  If A then B
	12. Therefore, B (7, 11)
which is in contradiction to (8)---B cannot both be true _and_ subjective.

However, it's completely consistent to assert
	13. If A then B
	14. B is subjective
	15. If Q then not A
	16. Q
because
	15. If Q then not A
	16. Q
	17. Therefore, not A (15, 16)
	13. If A then B
	18. (nothing about B can be concluded) (13, 17)
and the lack of conclusion at 18 is perfectly understandable in light of 14,
the fact that B is subjective.

So, if you're still with me, admitting that the answer to the question "Did
Jesus disobey the commandment to honor his father and mother" is subjective
automatically excludes the possibility that either biblical inerrancy or the
sinless life of Jesus are (objectively) true.

Jeff

• Previous message: No Way ! (for Martin)
• Next message: Ending threads
• Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]