ABO says that “Biblical statements are true or false”. If he actually believe the “…or false” part, he has given no hint of this before.

Every Bible prediction must be dead on the money or there is no credibility at all. Every event in history, every geological location, ever prediction must be correct.

Good question,

All of sciences statements are tentative.
Biblical statements are true or false. Big difference.

But what is the appeal of this idea [of Biblical inerrancy], and why is it so difficult for many of us to give up? I suggest that Biblical inerrancy is so appealing because it meets a desperate psychological need, for believers. It provides a sure ground for certainty.

Certainty is a defining need of the fundamentalist mindset. Fundamentalists are overwhelmed at the prospect of not being sure, or at least not being sure about the things that matter – one’s role and purpose in life, the basis for ethical behavior, what happens after death, how to make good decisions for your life. Now, these sorts of things often arouse anxiety for many people, not just fundamentalists. But because of their religious indoctrination, adherents to fundamentalist religion have a hard time managing that anxiety any other way.

Remember, as I have been elucidating in this series, the value and competence of one’s self is thoroughly undermined, in fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Christianity powerfully hammers home the idea that we are “horrors” to God: corrupt, prideful, and incapable of improving ourselves. The goal of fundamentalist apologetics is to overwhelm you with a gut-level conviction of your own badness, and thereby induce a sense of profound helplessness. It’s every effort is directed against undermining a believer’s sense of self-esteem, competence, or efficacy.

Such a believer can hardly be blamed for feeling inadequate to run his own life! Making important decisions when you cannot be sure of the “rightness” of your decision arouses normal anxiety in everyone. And to tolerate this anxiety and make a decision anyway requires some measure of basic self-esteem and self-confidence. But fundamentalists often have neither, because it has been ground out of them. So they have to get their confidence from somewhere else.

An inerrant text comes in right handy for such purposes. A better anxiety emollient than a perfect Word from a perfect God can hardly be imagined. In errant text quells a believer’s anxiety about life. He does not feel in control of his life, worm that he is – but he doesn’t have to be, because he can hand the reigns to God, certain of the guidance he finds in his book. Inerrancy serves a desperately needed function of establishing confidence in the only guiding star a believer thinks exists. Without it, he is adrift with nothing at all to lead him across some very scary and very lonely waters. The idea of steering using his own judgment just doesn’t occur to him.

So, my proposal for understanding the claim of Biblical inerrancy is this: fundamentalist believers posit inerrancy just because they need inerrancy. They can then just fuss with the details until it all fits. The result is not very elegant, perhaps. But who cares about elegance when your very soul is at stake?

Science and science-minded people are okay with saying, "I don't know."

Science and science-minded people are okay with changing our minds when a better explanation comes along.

Interesting article. I wonder if ABO sees himself in there even a little.

I wish we knew a little more about the author "Richard" though----- e.g., is this an informed or scholarly article based on solid foundations of psychology, or a well-articulated opinion piece that merely sounds good to psychology-challenged dunces like me.

Once again (and again and again), ABO asks the wrong question. The correct question "can you is show me evidence that a claim is true." The statement that Jesus is the son of God, or that God spoke to Moses, or that Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt, or that belief in Jesus will get you into heaven, are all statements for which there is no evidence, and no therefore no reason, given the world as we know it, to believe them. Asking someone who doesn't believe in them on faith to prove that they are false is silly.

Until there is considerable evidence that there is reason to belief that the supernatural parts of the Bible are true (son of God, salvation, etc.), the reasonable default position is that the Bible is not true - the same position I take for all other religious texts which claim to know the truth about such things. So far the things that ABO offers as reasons to believe are not substantial at all.

Can I show you evidence that a claim is true from the Bible? Yes.
It says He made them male and female. Male and female are here. It says He says he made the stars, I'm looking at em. Do we have to do this.

ABO, the Bible says that Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt, which, based on everything we know about the world today, is a preposterous thing to claim happened to a human being. Do you think that it is true that she was turned into a pillar of salt? If so, why do you believe that?

Jack, wrong question, What I believe or you believe doesn't matter. I can't prove it happened, you can't prove it didn't.

Way to avoid the issue, ABO - what bizarre, self-serving logic. You've been saying "show me something in the Bible that isn't true" and you've also said the Bible is totally and completely true: "Every Bible prediction must be dead on the money or there is no credibility at all. Every event in history, every geological location, ever prediction must be correct." That is, if it is not true that Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt, the Bible has no credibility at all. And since the Bible has complete credibililty t you, so you must believe the story of Lot's wife is true.

But you won't come right out and say that. You just fall on "no one was there, so we can't prove it didn't happen." That's not only silly logic, that's stupid logic. That same logic applies to every myth ever told - no matter how fantastic, since no one was there, we must just be neutral as to whether the event is true or false, even if the events totally violate everything we know about how the world works.

Weird, and a major example of how pointless it is to discuss things with Biblical literalisst such as yourself - you are totally isolated from and immune to any logical discussion about your beliefs.

</exasperation>