So I’m back, it’s been some time. I still identify as a theist, but am now increasingly finding it harder to identify as a Christian, or with any other religious grouping. I consider myself an outsider ‘friendly’ to Christianity.
I’ve been having some twitter interactions with atheist blogger Secular Outpost, who blogs at Patheos. Though he is an atheist, he makes an interesting concession to theism in this blog post, concluding that ultimately, consciousness is intrinsically more probable under theism than naturalism. Since theism presupposes that a conscious being (God) must exist, as opposed to naturalism, which does not.
So far so good, but it got me thinking, could the same logic be used against the very idea of biblical inspiration? After all, non-inspiration presupposes that errors/inaccuracies in the Bible exist, since the Bible claims to be God-breathed, which a non-inspirationist view will deny. In contrast, the Christian view contains no such supposition.
In other words, the non-christian will intrinsically have an easier time dealing with biblical problems than the Christian, so the argument goes.
What do you think of it? Any responses?