Christianity makes many claims that are beyond the realm of any kind of verification, either scientific or logical. For example, life after death and the existence of supernatural beings are both conveniently beyond the scope of scientific investigation. The existence of an immaterial soul also currently falls in that category, but neuroscience is getting very close to answering that one. There are, however, a few claims that can be falsified.

Today we will be looking at epistemology. Much of the liberal side of Christianity has adopted a philosophy of non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA), and are immune to some of the epistemological issues since they will adjust any falsified beliefs once science provides a better explanation. It’ll be interesting to see if they adjust their stance on the soul once neuroscience rules it out. Conservative Christianity (Fundamentalist, Evangelical, SDA, etc) rejects NOMA and ranks faith and theology above science and history in their epistemological hierarchy.

Inerrantists and other Biblical literalists will claim that at the least the Bible is substantively true. Some will even acknowledge that contradictions and some scientific errors (such as earth at the center of the universe) are due to minor errors in a few details. They do, however, still hold that the entirety of the message from creation to the apocalypse is true.

This is a very weak epistemology for a couple of reasons:

First of all, new scientific data is only accepted if it conforms to theological presuppositions. Not only does this restrict the advancement of knowledge, it also results in otherwise capable scientists looking to the presuppositions of an ancient text instead of the evidence to form their hypotheses. This wouldn’t be so bad if the presupposition was rejected once the hypothesis failed, but instead they dismiss whatever evidence doesn’t fit with the presupposition.

The other epistemological failure of this model is that there is no evidence for its epistemological authority. Pastors and theologians say the Bible is the ultimate source of knowledge available on this earth, but they aren’t a sufficient authority on all knowledge. If you try to find any evidence other than people just spouting off their presuppositions, all you will find is internal biblical texts that claim biblical authority, most notably 2 Timothy 3:16:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness…

If this was an appeal to authority it could be represented as, “A is true because B says so.” Which, is the committed by those who accept the word of pastors and theologians about it. However, for those “experts,” the support for biblical authority is, “A is true because A says so.”

To accept something as true on its own testimony, is nothing short of absurd.

(Note: Bonus points for anyone who catches the double entendre in the third paragraph. (Note for the note: not all double entendres are dirty.))