On Logic and Reason, the Bible, and A Priori Statements

The delving into metaphysics needs some clarification concerning objections to logic and reason.  The premise is the logic and reason are limited to understanding the true nature of existence because it's not possible to give the a priori statement in question because it requires that one uses logic and reason to conclude it.  I'm not going to argue against that objection because it is valid, though perhaps not conducive.  But I will argue against the Bible being the, or a, gap filler.

The first thing to look at is the premise that logic and reason are limited.  What this suggests is that while logic and reason are valid, they are limited to understanding the true nature of existence.  But what it does NOT say, and what I would suggest no one would claim, is that logic and reason is invalid.  Indeed, in order to have any sort of meaningful conversation, one requires the use of logic and reason to make communication coherent.  To accept logic and reason as tools of understanding is to accept that logic and reason are not contradictory, since by definition it necessitates non-contradiction.  Therefore, if there is a single exception arising from a separate a priori statement which removes the premise that logic and reason being valid, then logic and reason as a whole is invalid since it exists as a single a priori statement.  Since we accept logic and reason to be infallible (though human application of logic and reason is fallible) we must assume that should another premise invalidate the premise that logic and reason are valid, then we would throw out the other premise.  For a simple example, think about the premise that addition is valid so that one and one make two.  If we suggest a separate premise that gives rise to us concluding that one and one makes three, then we assume this separate premise is invalid, not the premise of addition being valid.

To summarize, I would suspect that we all believe logic and reason to exist and to be valid.  At the very least, logic and reason is therefore a subset of our understanding of existence.  To find an exception to logic and reason is to invalidate logic and reason.  We assume logic and reason to be valid.  Therefore, any premise that would invalidate logic and reason is invalid itself, and logic and reason remain.

Now the argument of the Bible comes into play.  The premise suggested is that the Bible gives truth to our existence (from here on out referred to as BB) beyond the limitation of logic and reason.  If we can find that this new premise leads to a contradiction with the premise of logic and reason, we will assume that the premise of the Bible is invalid.

As it goes, the Bible is in fact contradictory in its literal form and thus would necessitate an exception to the a priori of logic and reason (from here on out referred to as L&R).  Therefore we automatically can reject the idea that the Bible gives truth to our existence in its literal form.  Thus, in order for BB to hold weight, we must assume that the Bible must be interpreted.  As it is, the Bible has been interpreted many different ways that are mutually exclusive, as evidenced by the number of denominations of Christianity.  Since they are as whole mutually exclusive, they cannot all be correct and furthermore only one or few (if some small set of the denominations are not mutually exclusive) can be correct because otherwise they would constitute an exception to L&R.  Since this is the case, there is a very small minority of people (if any) who interpret the Bible who are correct in its interpretation.  But here's the kicker.  Roughly at least one person who follows any single interpretation will be just as convinced (or at least it cannot be proven otherwise) as someone else with another interpretation.  So how do we know which interpretation is the correct one?  In what capacity can we measure which interpretation is correct?  There is no answer to this and thus one can never assume to have the one true interpretation.  For any a priori statement to be made, it must be clear (i.e. not vague) and the very meaning of the a priori statement would have to be agreed upon or obvious, though not necessarily accepted.  Therefore, BB needs some extra clarification, specifically that it would be necessary to transform it to say that "a specific interpretation of the Bible, as written , gives truth to our existence" (from here on referred to as IB).

There's not much to say (that I know of) to someone who considers their interpretation to give rise to the IB in question.  All one can say is that there are perhaps an infinite other possibilities which could take the place of any particular IB (including other IBs) and it would suggest a delusion of grandeur for one to admit that only his/her interpretation is the true interpretation, though not invalid.  The only way to avoid this is to not accept L&R, which I again would suggest no one ought to or would do.  As it stands, the correct interpretation cannot be discovered by other a priori statements that don't have the same problem themselves, i.e. there is no objective means to discover the correct interpretation.  Since, then, very few people will agree to accept anyone's particular IB, it doesn't stand as a very strong a priori statement.  Moreover, interpretation requires another a priori of subjectivity, since interpretation is specifically subjective.  Specifically, one would require an a priori statement which decrees that subjective statements can be decided as true (from here on referred to as ST), for if it cannot be decided as true then no person can claim that their interpretation is correct, which implies that no person may claim any particular IB.  ST really opens up a whole floodgate of statements based on subjectivity including but not excluded to: faeces taste good as fact or theism is a good thing as fact (who's to say that these are not true?).  From merely an argument of absurdity, it would suggest that ST is not a valid a priori statement, and thus neither can an IB since it requires ST.

To summarize, BB is not sufficient in literal form since it would require an exception to L&R.  Thus, BB must be specialized to an IB.  IB is not self-evident, and requires ST.  ST leads to absurd statements (suggesting an exception to L&R) so we would/should not accept it.  Therefore, since IB relies on ST and ST is presumed not valid, IB is not valid.  Thus, BB in any form is not valid since it leads to an exception of L&R which no person ought to or would do.  Ergo, the Bible does not and cannot fill the gap (if it exists) where logic and reason leave off.

The Problem of Interpretation

The Bible is so full of contradictions that I need not delve into them as they can readily be researched by anyone equipped with Google and a keyboard.  Because of these contradictions, the bible cannot be taken literally, and I suspect that very few Christians indeed take the bible literally.  Thus, most all theists interpret the bible as they see fit.  But who has authority on these interpretations?  Which interpretation is the correct way to view the bible? 

When you take an English class, you inevitably are required to interpret some novel and write an essay about it.  It has long been stipulated that there is no wrong interpretation (so long as you backup your interpretation), and if you happen to interpret a novel differently from someone else then both views are accepted.  Indeed, most theists who are members of one of the over 200 denominations of Christianity agree to disagree about their varied interpretations of the bible – to a certain extent.  There are those who think you’re actually eating Jesus at communion, and there are those who think it’s only symbolic.  There are those who think that you have to believe to get to heaven, and there are those who think you get there by your actions.  Then you get to the interpretations that Christians more likely disagree to disagree (not inclusively or exclusively): women’s rights, homosexuality, abortions, sex out of wed-lock, contraceptives, indoctrination, etc.  But who’s right? 

Obviously, you cannot know how to interpret an object from the object itself.  There must be an outside source.  We can no longer ask the writers, and so far as we know they didn’t write out how to interpret their own writings.  So who do we get our interpretations from: the pope, the priest, your parents, yourself, the guy on the soap-box, the mentally ill, etc.?  Regardless of where you get your interpretation from, others will get theirs from somewhere or someone else.  Everyone will be convinced that theirs is right.  You might tell me that you just know that yours is right because you (and probably only you) truly know how to correctly interpret the bible because of your supreme closeness and understanding of your god, but then I’d feel obligated to send you to a Psychiatric ward with a toe-tag labeled ‘Delusions of Grandeur’. 

But here’s the question that’s being begged:  What are the limits to interpretation?  Who’s to say that I cannot interpret the bible as condoning child sacrifice, raping virgins of captive nations, going to war over religion, etc.? Who’s to say that I cannot interpret the bible as nothing more than the equivalent of Homer’s The Iliad where there may be some historical relevance but for the most part it’s all the product of human creativity?  Once you allow room for interpretation, there are no barriers to how much is to be interpreted and in how many ways. 

Now if you argue that there are some things to be interpreted and some things to be taken literal, you still have the problem of deciding which of those things are which.  You cannot have your cake and eat it too.  Further, it’s not really that you’re taking a part of the bible literally, but rather interpreting that part of the bible as if it were to be taken literally.  And so I am equally able to interpret that bible as not literal.  Let me explain: If you are to read a book as being literal, you need not read the book first before deciding whether it or which parts should be read literally; just like I don’t need to read a scientific book before I read it as being literal because the book itself is designed to be read literally.  There’s no interpretation either required or intended.  The bible does not have this quality – one has to read it first to decide which parts should be taken literally, and so it is for any book which has room for interpretation.  So, if a book is to be read for interpretation, I need to read it first to know which parts are to be taken interpretively and which parts are to be taken literal.  But then I am only interpreting those parts deemed literal to be literal; just like I can interpret literally Hamlet saying ‘Something is rotten in the state of Denmark’ as meaning there’s some organic substance decaying in the state of Denmark (maybe he was referring to his lunch and was getting hungry?).  The quote itself is not inherently literal, but it can be interpreted as if it were literal. 

So much emphasis is put on the bible and yet so very few people can agree on the same interpretation of it.  If you allow free interpretation, then I’m free to interpret it as a fable and equally as a guide (and proponent for) on how to torment mankind – and you should not think it wrong of me to do so since you allow yourself equal maneuvering.  If you allow for only your interpretation, then you delude yourself with thinking you’re the only one who really knows what it’s all about.  And let me tell you this: no matter how much you are convinced that you know the true interpretation, I guarantee you there’s someone else out there with a different interpretation just as convinced as you – neither of which can be verified since it is a completely subjective stance.  If you allow for no interpretation, you’ll be committed to removing all contradictions from the bible which would ultimately leave you with not much of anything.