A quote from Kenton Sparks’ book God’s Word in Human Words

One implication of practical realism’s account of human knowledge is that the experience of certainty (“I am certain”) does not translate into incorrigible, epistemic certainty (“therefore, I cannot be wrong”). We can be quite certain and quite wrong at the same time.

Alex McManus discusses foundationalism and biblical inerrancy.

To a large extent, their [fundamentalists’s] faith had been shaped by the conversation with Descartes and the Enlightenment project. I understood that for them the scriptures were the foundation and basis for faith. Their entire belief system, if not founded on an indubitable foundation, could potentially be brought down. …

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy was a “hedge” of protection they had raised to protect this foundation. Because the critical approach to the study of scripture had made this already dubious claim difficult to justify, even the hedge had a hedge: it is the original manuscripts of the scriptures that were absolutely flawless. Yes, the Bibles we held in our hands may have a glitch here and there but the original documents themselves were a pristine work of beauty from the hand of God on which men and women could risk their lives.

In what museum were these originals contained? Oh that. There are no original documents.

Let’s recap. How did we know the gospel was true and how could we prove the truth of the gospel to others? The answer: Inerrant, original manuscripts that don’t exist. That’s how. These flawless original manuscripts give an unspoken pass to the Bibles we held in our hands, a kind of imputed inerrancy.

Jenell Williams Paris writes about awareness and joy

The breakfast dishes (the ones that have to be done by hand) gave me opportunity to practice awareness – when you’re doing the dishes, just do the dishes. But, many of us say, it’s impossible with young children (“it” being growth, progress, enlightenment, meditation, awareness, focus, and so on)! I spent nine minutes washing the dishes and was interrupted at least six times to settle a conflict, wipe a bum, admire what someone did in the potty, find a battery, comfort an owie, and help get a shirt on. I saw anger arise – “Hey kids – get the hell out of my way so I can practice serenity!!”

But it wasn’t the kids that were interrupting – it was my mental formations. …

I was trying to do the ideal dishes – the ones that need to be done in a sunny kitchen in a quiet house. It’s true, I can’t do those dishes, but I can do the dishes I have – the ones in this messy, loud house where there’s always a child’s needs squeezed between the bowl I’m washing now and the knife I reach for next. … When I live in the real world with my real dishes and my real children, I can be responsive. Their needs come fast and furious, but they aren’t interruptions (interruptions to what, after all? the life I’m not even living? the fantasy world in my mind?). Awareness means just living; just doing the dishes, wiping the bums, settling the conflicts, and putting on the shirts. Just that is enough. Just that is joy.

From the article Limitations of Science at the website Undeception.com

I think the point of Dr. Miller’s quote was that even a full description of what physical things occur and how they occur in a mechanical fashion does not preclude a third descriptor: why. Philosophical materialists insist that satisfactory answers to “what” and “how” questions are sufficient, and since they are answerable in the laboratory, the picture of reality that the laboratory furnishes for us is, by their estimation, altogether complete. Theists argue that we should not ignore the question “why”, even though it cannot be recovered by the scientific method; discounting “why” as a valid question shows a presuppositional bias toward materialism and does not constitute an argument for it.

No or yes, or perhaps—
from a distance they all look the same.
What changes is the question.

From the poem First Star by Connie Wanek.

Henry Neufeld responds to the assertion that biblical higher criticism “gives inappropriate license to decide what he or she perceives as truth based on the resources and education of the critic.”

Yet whenever we read scripture we interpret. This criticism of higher criticism does nothing more than reject it because one disagrees with the results. There are problems with higher criticism, just as there are problems with [the alternative method of] reading everything literally. These are problems that require thoughtful responses. I would reject a version of higher criticism that stands on purely naturalistic assumptions. But such a foundation is unnecessary to find value in many of the tools provided.

Here’s a sentiment I resonate with when it comes to questions about integrating the Bible and science, from Bill Donahue. It’s comment #33 in this comment thread.

Perhaps the answer here is asking more questions, not answers.

A comment by Scot McKnight (comment number 7 in this comment thread) about whether our faith is in the Bible or in Jesus. Which one is the basis for the other’s authority?

At an objective level, what matters, for instance, is that Jesus was raised. If he was raised, whether we have perfect reports or reliable reports or only partly reliable reports, then he was raised and, if raised, something powerful is at work. I have been convinced for a long that time that many Christians actually believe in Jesus because they believe in the Bible, and that faith in the Bible is the bottom of their faith. Others believe in the Bible because they believe in Jesus. We all need to think through this better: our faith is in a Person.

David Hayward offering an example of what would be an inappropriately hostile comment to leave on his blog.

Well, men are from Mars; women are from Venus. But you might as well be speaking from Uranus, you stupid idiot!

Joe Keohane writes about partisanship and facts in an article in the Boston Globe

In a series of studies in 2005 and 2006, researchers at the University of Michigan found that when misinformed people, particularly political partisans, were exposed to corrected facts in news stories, they rarely changed their minds. In fact, they often became even more strongly set in their beliefs.

…

The problem is that sometimes the things they [partisan voters] think they know are objectively, provably false. And in the presence of the correct information, such people react very, very differently than the merely uninformed. Instead of changing their minds to reflect the correct information, they can entrench themselves even deeper.

…

In reality, we often base our opinions on our beliefs, which can have an uneasy relationship with facts. And rather than facts driving beliefs, our beliefs can dictate the facts we chose to accept. They can cause us to twist facts so they fit better with our preconceived notions. Worst of all, they can lead us to uncritically accept bad information just because it reinforces our beliefs. This reinforcement makes us more confident we’re right, and even less likely to listen to any new information. And then we vote.