Comments on: ETS 2007: How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What Can Be Done About It by J.P. Moreland

By: eddieandfreddie

eddieandfreddie — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 08:22:15 +0000

Hello. Recently came across Moreland's paper and the responses in the blogosphere, including the discussion at your former site, where I posted, only to discover the old site is defunct. Looks like I'm a couple years behind the times. All I wanted to comment on was the comment about genetic fallacies made in this article. To clarify, a genetic fallacy is drawing a logical entailment between the origin of a belief and its truth-value. However, the origin of a belief can be used to undermine justification for believing a given proposition. That would be a legitimate use of origin-of-belief talk and not a commission of the genetic fallacy. The latter is all Moreland appears to be doing.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 06:51:50 +0000

I agree that it'll be best to agree to disagree here…I hope the way you and I reasoned through things was to the benefit of others reading these posts. It was for me and gave me an excuse to spend time thinking through an important issue. And thanks for reconsidering the language of “doubtful” and putting it to print.
By the way ATT is a phone company. It's AAT. 😉

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 05:07:06 +0000

“ATT”
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on these issues. I think your argument against the charge of a fallacy considering the context of Dr. Moreland's claim actually supports the charge of a fallacy.
There are a number of Christians who argue against the use and study of natural theology, but Dr. Moreland doesn't acknowledge them. I don't agree with most of their criticisms, but I think Dr. Moreland's claims would benefit from at least some brief engagement with them. I'm not a cessationist either, but there are even more of them available with ample arguments to engage. In my opinion, one footed noted reference to Gaffin just doesn't cut it when building the case for such a controversial claim.
I think I should note more clearly here that I agree that general problem Dr. Moreland is addressing is a problem- “over-commitment” to the Bible as he defined it (even though I would have chosen a different term). What I take issue with is his assumption that this problem is common among evangelicals and the manner in which he argues against the problem.
The book has been on my reading list for awhile, but I do have other obligations first. Upon re-reading my original post I can see that the language I used was stronger than I meant it to be. I'll be adding an editorial comment noting that. This paper, recent lectures, and the embrace of Third Way theology has indeed raised concerns for me about Dr. Moreland's commitment to the Bible as the ultimate authority for spiritual matters. However, my word choice of being “doubtful” about his commitment was too strong. At this point I'm merely concerned about it, and I apologize the confusion my poor word choice caused.
I know it may be hard to believe from this post, but Dr. Moreland was very influential in my early interest in philosophy and apologetics, and he's one of the primary reasons I wanted to go to Talbot. I have immense respect for him as a philosopher and as a Christian who seeks as much excellence in his personal life as in his philosophy.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 03:16:26 +0000

sorry, i see now where i made the comment about the bruised knee. I see that is where your comment about physical/spiritual came from. Yes, our problems can be the result of both physical and spiritual problems. I suppose my original comments were not clear.
In my opinion our spiritual problems are given adequate cures in the Bible. Therefore if someone is saying we need something other than the Bible to solve a personal problem I would assume they think that problem is not spiritual. (I could be wrong and they actually think that it is spiritual but that it does not have an adequate solution in the Bible).
Sorry for making myself unclear and causing confusion.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 20:13:51 +0000

Thanks Aaron for the clarification. Sorry if I added any confusion. I understand the genetic fallacy to be as you've described it.
A few exegetical comments from the paper before offering my final analysis of our logical fallacy dispute. The best chance, as I see it, of getting the genetic fallacy accusation to stick is to capitalize on the following statement: “If I am right about [the socio-historical analysis], then Evangelical over-commitment to the Bible is a result of the influence of secularization on the church and not of biblical or theological reflection.” (Moreland's paper, p.5) I think if you find anything potentially fallacious, then it

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 06:29:22 +0000

correction: any mention of psychiatrist above should be replaced with psychologist.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 05:54:58 +0000

Thanks for the questions Aaron,
I have no intention of denying that we have physical problems. Perhaps you could clarify what you are talking about though, so I don't misunderstand you.
My sister contracted malaria last year from Haiti. It caused a tremendous amount of problems. It prevented her from thinking clearly. It went untreated for a long time in the US because the doctors refused to consider that her problems were from malaria. Of course I'm not trying to say that malaria did not cause her problems. However, that has nothing to do with psychology.
Again, I'm not defending the BCF. I don't know what they believe or teach. I am simply responding to Koukl's paper. I never brought up anything about physical problems.
Wikipedia says the following (and this is the definition of psychology I am operating from):
Psychology (from Greek, Literally “to talk about the soul” (from psyche (soul) and logos)) is both an academic and applied discipline involving the scientific study of mental processes and behavior. Psychologists study such phenomena as perception, cognition, emotion, personality, behavior, and interpersonal relationships. Psychology also refers to the application of such knowledge to various spheres of human activity, including issues related to daily life

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 03:54:25 +0000

Thanks Aaron,
That's what I was thinking, but I couldn't find my logic textbook 😉

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 03:23:30 +0000

Hi Brandon,
I was hoping it was obvious how un-Christian is his notion that our problems are not spiritual.
Must every problem either be spiritual or physical? Are there no cases in which it would be an and/both rather than an either/or?
The problem with saying that we don't have to reject psychology because the bible is silent on the issue is that the bible may be silent because psychology has invented false understandings of the nature of man.
I don't think that Greg ever makes this argument, which means it is a bit of a straw man. Nor do I know anyone arguing against the total rejection of psychology who uses this argument. Perhaps you could point me to where Koukl says this. In fact, he explicitly says that his paper is not a “sweeping defense of psychology.” He really only addresses two issues that he sees as being foundational to the modern rejection of psychology: whether the Bible teaches “Bible-only”, and whether man is so distorted by sin as to be unable to discover things about himslef and his world and develop ways to improve both. I don't see in your (understandably brief) critique any address to these two points and where he went wrong.
Sorry if this is too far off-topic, Roger.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 25 Nov 2007 03:07:28 +0000

Hi Roger and ATT, Actually Roger, you didn't mis-label Moreland's fallacious argumentation (or at least your description of his argumentation; I haven't yet looked closely enough at his paper to affirm or deny what you've said). If he did argue in the manner you depicted, he did indeed committ the genetic fallacy. ATT, your definition: the genetic fallacy occurs when someone argues that since some view is argued for by a certain (usually unseemly) group, it is therefore false. But of course, no entailment follows; hence to reason this way is to commit an informal logical fallacy. is not quite correct. Technically, it is not broad enough. The genetic fallacy occurs when someone confuses the origin of the idea with the reasons for believing it and faults it for the former rather than the latter. This could indeed be, as you said, a group, but it is not limited to that. "Origin" also includes the social phenomenon and processes that produces the idea, which is exactly what Roger is saying JP used to reject the view in question.