Reason is the basis for knowledge

Reason is the basis for knowledge and therefore the way to determine what is true.

For example, under empiricism [the philosophical view that knowledge comes from sensory experience and observation] they will use reason to formulate a hypothesis, construct an experiment, and evaluate the result. So, an empiricist will, in fact must, appeal to logic/reason to obtain knowledge. And this is true for any other schools of thought – everyone will appeal to reason to defend their view as well as criticize/evaluate other views

Reason or Critical thinking is the act or practice of careful goal-directed thinking (i.e applying reason and questioning assumptions) to solve problems, evaluate information, discern biases, etc. 

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy states: One could sum up the core concept that involves these three features by saying that critical thinking is careful goal-directed thinking. We use Critical thinking for analyzing and/or evaluating information gathered from various sources as a guide to convictions and action in everyday life and in all fields of inquiry. 

A Christian may say that revelation is knowledge, but they must still reason from the Scriptures, as in Acts 17:2,17

Note: if one uses reason to criticize my claim, that's actually validating it - you are using reason to gain knowledge as to the validity of my claim.

Objection 1: Rationalism begs the question - the rationalist will use a rational argument as a premise for the conclusion of his argument.

Reply: To this, I say no, it is testing a hypothesis. Test all epistemic theories, see that all use reason.

Objection 2: I can use reason to gain knowledge about the Lord of the Rings. I can gain knowledge about a fictional universe, but that doesn't make it magically true for our reality

Reply: If one is gaining knowledge about the LOTR, then they should be able to gain the information that it's fictional.

Objection 3: One must use evidence along with reason to conclude they’ve learned something about reality and not about something in their (or someone else’s) imagination. Otherwise, there is no way to differentiate between knowledge about reality and knowledge about fictional universes.

Reply: First, notice that you did not use evidence in this, so you seem to have refuted your own point. Secondly, you cite "reality"; what is it, and how do you know?

Objection 4: Your appeal to “reasoning” as absolute authority is circular. You assert that “reasoning” is the ultimate authority because that is the only reasonable means for ascertaining truth.

Reply: Circular reasoning is when the proposition is supported by the premises, which are supported by the proposition, creating a circle in reasoning where no useful information is being shared.

But my argument stems from the fact I investigated other schools of thought until it dawned on me that everyone uses logic or reasoning to make their case, including empiricists, skeptics, intuitionists, etc.

Note: These pushbacks come from previous conversations about this topic.

To sum up,

1) reason alone can be used alone to gain knowledge 

 

2) every other method must employ reason to gain knowledge, otherwise their preferred epistemological model doesn't work

 
3) All criticisms of my view will invariably use reason to validate their analysis.

Other posts you may be interested in:

Skepticism is Not Critical Thinking

The Inference to the Best Explanation

The Consensus of the Experts Say... 

Atheism is a non-reasoned position/view

The Three Laws of Logic

Justified True Belief

Philosophical Naturalism is logically self-refuting

Philosophical Naturalism is logically self-refuting

Definition: 

Determinism, a theory or doctrine that acts of the will, occurrences in nature, or social or psychological phenomena are causally determined by preceding events or natural laws

A self-refuting idea or self-defeating idea is an idea or statement whose falsehood is a logical consequence of the act or situation of holding them to be true.

Examples: 

1) Truth cannot be known (If so, then how does one know this truth claim?)

2) Language cannot carry meaning  (If language cannot carry meaning, then what about this claim? Is it meaningful?)

3) Science is the only way to determine truth, or I only trust things I can determine through a scientific process  (Can science determine if that statement [about science] is true or what scientific experiment provided that conclusion for you?)

The problem:

Justification [the action of showing something to be right or reasonable] requires some kind of "cognitive freedom" - you need to have control over your deliberations, over what you do [or don't accept] on the basis of evidence, reason, However, determinism [the belief that all actions and events result from other actions [i.e not you - so people cannot in fact choose what to do] makes this freedom impossible. 

Therefore, the person who argues for determinism, or is tempted to accept it, is in a weird position: their conclusion apparently undermines the very reasoning process they're using to justify it.

The Argument:

Philosophical Naturalism is the belief that nature is all that exists, and that all things supernatural (including gods, spirits, souls and non-natural values) therefore do not exist. It is sometimes called Metaphysical Naturalism or Ontological Naturalism to distinguish it from Methodological Naturalism. Philosophical Naturalism entails physical determinism

Methodological Naturalism is the assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural/physical causes for all events and phenomenon. From Rationalwiki - An online rationalist skeptical resource with is decidedly anti-religious, anti-theistic bent.

Michael Ruse an atheist and Philosopher of science in The Oxford Handbook of Atheism writes "It is usual to distinguish between "methodological naturalism" and "metaphysical naturalism" whereby the latter we need a complex denial of the supernatural - including atheism as understood in the context of this publication - and by the former a conscious decision to act in inquiry and understanding, especially scientific inquiry and understanding as if metaphysical naturalism were true. The intention is not to assume that metaphysical naturalism is true, but to act as if it were.  [p383]

That's methodological naturalism - assuming naturalism is true, or acting as if it were, in one's methodology.

Philosophical Naturalism holds that any mental properties that exist are causally derived from, and ontologically dependent on, systems of non-mental properties, powers or things (i.e. all minds, and all the contents and powers and effects of minds, are entirely constructed from or caused by natural phenomena). 

Philosophical Naturalism entails physical determinism - all events are physically determined, including human thoughts. 

To do science one must only presume that the universe is orderly, i.e. disposed in some order or pattern, or governed by law.

1) Reason is the basis for all knowledge, since all epistemological theories or methods must employ it.

2) Every truth claim requires the laws of logic. It is impossible to deny the laws of logic without using them. Thus, logic reason, and critical thinking are an aspect of reality. In fact, everyone is using logic in this discussion, so it seems evident that all believe that logic is an aspect of reality.

3) All debates presuppose a reality that exists. Each debater is trying to show that their claims are closer to that reality or are best explained by that reality.

4) Critical thinking's definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal. [source] Critical thinking is purposeful, reasoned, and goal-directed; an intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action.

5) Under Philosophical Naturalism all actions, including human thoughts, words and deeds, are the result of matter which must act in accordance with antecedent physical conditions and the physical laws without exceptions.

6) 4 above is incoherent under Philosophical Naturalism; logic, reason, and critical thinking are an aspect of reality that cannot be explained via Philosophical Naturalism, since no one has dominion over their thoughts - i.e. no one makes any molecule act in a manner inconsistent with the physical laws, as they must act only in accordance to the physical laws Note: Just saw this vid where William Lane Craig agrees with this point

7) The best explanation for the existence of logic is that there is an aspect of reality that is free from the constraints of the physical; i.e. not being caused to do something by causes other than oneself. It is up to me how I choose, and nothing determines my choice. One's decisions are differentiated from natural events by being done by the agent himself for reasons the agent has in mind.

J. P. Moreland in his book, “Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity" offers a perfect summary: “Physicalism cannot be offered as a rational theory because physicalism does away with the necessary preconditions for there to be such a thing as rationality.” If a naturalist wants to argue that rationality does not exist, they will be making two grave errors: 1- They would be claiming to be non-rational, and 2- they would be making a rational argument that rationality does not exist. It seems the rational decision one ought to come to is that naturalism is irrational, and therefore, false.

In Daniel O. Dhalstrom's Heidegger's concept of truth the author writes: There is, for example, a metaphysical sense of naturalism that Husserl deems self-refuting: the theoretical pretense that everything - including, preeminently, ideas and consciousness - is part of "nature", conceived as the ensemble of empirical facts governed by laws uncovered by natural science....The claim is self-refuting and a pretense because it cannot justify itself; 

Conclusion: Philosophical Naturalism is not simply less likely to be correct, it is logically self-refuting and is necessarily false since it cannot account for reason - careful, purposeful, intellectually disciplined, goal directed thinking as a guide to belief and action. Under PN every thought action is physically determined. Thus, the existence of logic is best explained in a reality where more than the physical exists - something that is not bound by physical restraints - which allows one the freedom of not being caused to do something by causes other than oneself.

As Haldane once said, “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”

Either “reason” is merely an illusion of physics—in which case there is no justification for relying on it to produce truthful beliefs—or “reason” is something more than physical—in which case naturalism is false. If human reason is driven by mindless particle interactions, it does not necessarily correspond to truth. If we believe reason corresponds to truth, we cannot also believe reason is determined purely by physical means.

No belief is rationally inferred if it can be fully explained in terms of non-rational causes.

Objection A: We live in a natural world. There is no supernatural. Deal with it

Reply: Yes, we live in a natural world, that's not the question. Which is, is reality encompassed by just the natural world?  Given the above argument, that's not likely. 

Objection B: Naturalism is not a presumption. Its induction. If you have only ever seen white swans, and you have to guess what color the next swan you see will be, the best guess is white.

Reply: How does this show that only the physical exists? 

Objection C: this argument does not sufficiently demonstrate that philosophical naturalism is self refuting. So it still stands.

Reply: This is an assertion. It can be, and should be, lopped off with Hitchens's razor: what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. If you have an argument, please provide it. 

Objection D: Quantum Mechanics shows that the world/universe that is just physical isn't necessarily deterministic

Reply: While that is true, it hardly solves the problem of grounding rational, logical, goal-oriented thoughts in a physical world where there are only determined thoughts or random thoughts. 

Objection E: Being a philosophical naturalist doesn’t mean you have to be a determinist

Reply: I've heard this objection from quite a few, but I always follow up with this: "If only natural laws and forces operate in the universe, how then are human actions not determined by those laws and forces?"

My interlocutors either go silent or try burden shifting, as they are unable to come up with anything to support their claim that "Being a philosophical naturalist doesn’t mean you have to be a determinist".

There is NO evidence for God!

I hear the "There is no evidence for God" line all the time from atheists and other critics, but I think that it's untrue; there IS evidence for God.

An analogy: The Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, but that doesn't mean that there is no evidence for the Steady State universe or a cyclical universe. It just means that the Big Bang Theory explains more of the data/evidence better than those other two. The same data/evidence is used by all three.

Similarly, Christians, atheists, and other critics all see the same data/evidence, however Christians offer an explanation but atheists, and other critics usually do not.

The data/evidence

1) Reason is the basis for all knowledge - thus one cannot default to scientific explanations.

2) Philosophical Naturalism is logically incoherent, thus 1) one cannot default to physical explanations; 2) we now have at least one reason to see non-physical explanations as reasonable.

3) Our thoughts are not just brain activity, rather they are the result of an immaterial mind thus, we now have a second reason to see non-physical explanations as reasonable

4) A metaphysically necessary, efficient cause solves the problem of an infinite regress of causes

5) the origin of DNA is more likely on design than chance.

6) The fine-tuning of the universe is more likely on design than chance or necessity - thus, given all the above, a transcendent metaphysically necessary God is the best explanation for life as we know it.

7) Jesus was a historical person, see also Bart Erhman, NT Scholar agnostic/atheist where he says ["no question Jesus existed"] since there are many, early, independent sources.

8) Jesus' resurrection was historical rather than a myth

Conclusion: Sans the presumption of philosophical naturalism, 1–8 above, and the explanation offered for each, offer a critical thinker good reasons to conclude that the Christian God is the best explanation for the world as we know it.

If atheists and other critics with "I don't know" or "I'm not convinced" then they are admitting that they do not have any explanations and tacitly conceding that the Christian has the better explanation.

If one has no better explanation(s), why reject the Christian's?

Objection A - This is a God of the gaps fallacy

Reply: I’m not citing a gap in our knowledge and saying "God did it". This is a series of arguments; first showing that reason is the basis for knowledge not science; second, that must be a non-physical aspect to reality; third that design is a better explanation for our existence and life; fourth that God is the best explanation for whom that designer is.

Objection B - The theory of the existence of a mind makes no predictions, thus there can be no evidence for it. 

Reply: It doesn't need to. You seem assuming that it must meet the criteria for a scientific theory, but this is a logical argument. See point 1 Reason is the basis for all knowledge - thus one cannot default to scientific explanations.

Objection C - this is just a list of assertions based on your own ignorance, incredulity, and gullibility; that's not evidence for God. This is just "apologist goulash"  

Reply:  You are just sticking your head in the sand, refusing to engage in a discussion of the evidence/data/arguments. 

Objection D - You might want to post this on a Reddit sub where you debate atheists, not Christians. I'm sure the Christians here could offer some constructive feedback, though.

Reply:  In my experience: 1) there are enough atheists in Christian subs to get feedback/debate, 2) what I mostly get on when I used to post atheist Subreddits is derision and downvotes, no intelligent discussion. Look at the current comments on Reddit. Additionally, Christians can be edified, educated, and enriched with this.

Objection E - Your points/arguments are incredibly inaccurate

Reply: Which ones specifically and where exactly are the errors for each? 

Objection F - Is the universe really so perfect? It’s extreme and harsh. Completely inhospitable for life, with vast excesses of empty space. Is that the mark of design?

Reply: When scientists speak of fine-tuned universes, they are referring to universes that are life-permitting. By life-permitting, they do not mean that life can exist wherever, or whenever, or that it's a paradise, or that there is no suffering/death; they do not even guarantee that life will exist. It’s a much more modest claim. It only holds that the fine-tuning will permit the existence of life. That’s it.

Objection G - You misunderstand what constitutes evidence.

Reply: Evidence is an item or information proffered to make the existence of a fact more or less probable. Evidence can take the form of testimony, documents, archaeological finds, DNA, etc

DNA is evidence. The findings of neuroscience for an an immaterial mind is evidence. Fine-Tuned Constants is evidence. Philosophical Naturalism is logically incoherent is evidence

Objection H -  Where you see design, others see chaos.

Reply: What better explains the Fine-Tuned Constants of the universe? Design, or chaos? Why?

What better explains the multitude of DNA-based micromachines like the ATP Synthase? Design, or chaos? Why?

SETI looks for design [or artificiality - i.e. not generated by natural processes], an arson investigator can tell if a fire came about naturally or was started by a human, the police can determine if a death was natural or at the hands of a human, an archeologist can say whether it’s a just rock or an arrowhead, etc. An appeal to a designer is accepted in every field of inquiry, including biology - we can determine whether a virus, like Covid-19 was designed of was natural.

An a priori non-design stance seems to be an a priori ideological conclusion, rather one that is driven by the facts

Objection I -  The problem with this is sooner or later we hit a brute fact. I say that the fact is there are natural laws that describe how reality functions.  You say, because a magic guy made it that way.  We can show the laws, testable, repeatable, and consistent.

Reply: First, you cite "reality"; so what is reality, and how do you know? 

It can't be Philosophical Naturalism since it's logically incoherent and since Reason is the basis for all knowledge this seems to be how we should evaluate arguments

And the "magic guy" is better understood as A metaphysically necessary, efficient cause 

Additional info

Atheist Engineer Explains How Reason Led Him To GOD (Part 1) [Video]

The Judgment of the Canaanites was not Genocide

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

A Rebuttal to "A Rebuttal to Seven Arguments Which Show That Universalism is a False Doctrine"

This is a response to this rebuttal  of my original Seven Arguments Which Show That Universalism is a False Doctrine that I posted on Reddit


The Aionios Argument

Objection A: Since this judgment of "eternal" fire is said to serve as a warning, it cannot be a reference to a postmortem judgment of the Sodomites. Such judgment could not be observed as a lesson for the living; furthermore, the Sodomites would not presently be experiencing their final punishment, which awaits the day of judgment and the lake of fire. The "consuming fire" is God himself (Heb. 12:29)

Reply: First problem is that Hebrews 12:29 uses the word "katanaliskó" not aionios; the former means "to use up", the latter means "agelong, eternal" - this seems to be equivocating on what is in the text.

Secondly if we use the this defintion of Aionios that is proposed then we will have a problem with the following veres:

Matthew 18:8, “If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.”
Matthew 25:41, “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;”

Are we to think that Matthew when says that people are being cast "into the eternal fire", he means that they are cast into God!?!?!

So on those 2 points we can reject this proposed rebuttal.

Objection B: When aionios modifies words like "life," "glory?" "righteous-ness," "salvation," "wrath," and "punishment," could it not be that the writers are simply speaking of these things as coming from God, and being manifestations of His character or attri-butes, which are eternal?

Reply: "could it not be" is not a a convincing argument. To be convincing it should be the best explanation. No reason is given why that is the best explantion, and given the problem with being cast "into the eternal fire" - i.e. God; one can reject this until, at least a cogent argument is presented.

Objection C: Since this judgment of "eternal" fire is said to serve as a warning, it cannot be a reference to a postmortem judgment of the Sodomites. Such judgment could not be observed as a lesson for the living;...

Reply: One can, as countless other Christians have in the past, read this warning and heed it. So, this definately can be a lesson for the living!

Objection D: ....furthermore, the Sodomites would not presently be experiencing their final punishment, which awaits the day of judgment and the lake of fire.

Reply: So what? How does the fact that the day of judgment has not yet been imposed mean that everyone is saved?

Argument 2 - the Two Ways argument

Objection E: The problem with these texts is the attempt to make them a reference to eternal fates in the afterlife. In fact, the condition of those in the afterlife isn’t mentioned explicitly anywhere in the entire OT. The fate of the wicked after death is nowhere mentioned in the entirety of the OT.

Reply: We have the New Testament to refer. See Annihilationism and Revelation 20

Four facts we can glean from Revelation 20

1) The devil was thrown into the lake of fire along with the beast and the false prophet, [vs 10]

2) where they will be tormented day and night forever and ever [vs 10]

3) The lake of fire is the second death. [vs 14]

4) Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was also thrown into the lake of fire. [vs 15]  [See the link above for the full argument.]

Objection F: I would like to add, that there’s an assumption that if God brings a judgement, that the purpose of that judgement is apparently anything other than disciplinary, and isn’t for the purpose of purification. I would like to argue that this assumption is wrong in a future post.

Reply: I have assumed nothing; if that is where the text leads, then I follow.

Argument 3 - the no righteous judgment argument

Objection G: this is an outright straw man. I don’t know of any evangelical universalists that believe God doesn’t exercise judgment upon sinners. The only difference is the universalist believes that God’s judgement upon sinners is for the purpose of reconciliation, and ultimate restoration.

Reply: Perhaps I should rephrase the title of the argument, but it seems you reacted to the title, not the actual argument: Revelation offers a picture of God’s righteous judgment against a sinful world, in overt rebellion against himself, as the bowls of his wrath are poured out in Revelation 16. The Beast, the False Prophet, and the Devil are later seized by the Lord and unrepentant sinners are thrown into “the lake of fire” - which is the second death.

Argument 4 - wise and foolish virgins argument

Objection H: this argument rests upon a futurist interpretation of the Gospel accounts. I am a preterist concerning Matthew 24-25 (most of 25).

Reply: Above. you went on about what you thought I assumed. Yet here you assume preterism, and that is the lens upon which you interpret the Bible. If one is going to offer an objection based on preterism they should at least be able to articulate why it is the correct view.  

Argument 5 - the defeat of God’s last remaining enemy

Objection I: Our debate is ultimately what the apostles believe, as revealed in their letters. This means that any text that’s presented to prove something must be scrutinized in its context. 1 Corinthians 15 is an excellent example of what happens when our theology isn’t derived from a proper understanding of the Bible. 

“But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” ‭‭I Corinthians‬ ‭15‬:‭20‬-‭22‬ ‭NKJV‬‬

This is immediately before the passages quoted in the OP. Directly in the same context. Now, unless there’s a valid reason to conclude that the all in Adam isn’t the same all in Christ, then presumably all will be resurrected to life. 

Reply:  The first part of 1 Cor 15:22 is clear. All the descendants of Adam die physically. The phrase in Adam all die means that all who are in Adam die physically. We are all in Adam. The second part of the verse depends on the meanings of the expressions "in Christ" and shall be made alive.

Does in Christ here refer exclusively to believers, as it typically does throughout Paul’s writings when he is referring to those who are in Christ (e.g., 1 Cor 3:1; 15:18; 2 Cor 5:17; 12:2; Gal 5:6; 6:15; Eph 2:13; Phil 1:1)? 

Four reasons that Paul was not teaching universalism in this verse

First of all, notice that “shall be made alive” is future. Believers already have everlasting life (John 3:16; 5:24; 6:47). Believers already have eschatological salvation (John 3:17-18; 5:24; 6:35; 11:26; Eph 2:8-9; 1 Thess 5:10).

Second, the context of 1 Corinthians is about believers exclusively, not about believers and unbelievers. See this article entitled “The Strongest Argument for Universalism in 1 Corinthians 15:20–28,” by Andrew Wilson 

And we can note who this epistle was addressed to: the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus - i.e believers

Third, the promise of everlasting life to the believer is an exclusive promise. Only those who believe have that life (John 3:14-18, 36; 5:39-40).

Fourth, the Scriptures are clear that there is no such thing as people dying in unbelief, then later gaining everlasting life (John 8:24; Heb 9:27; Rev 20:15).

Objection J:  The resurrection of the lost means that all of creation has been reclaimed by Christ. For some inexplicable reason, OP has concluded that those in the lake of fire are enemies of God. Why? Christ has already reclaimed them, they belong to Him, even as they’re going through the process of purification before entering into the new Jerusalem. That’s the hinge OP’s entire argument hangs upon, but there’s really no reason to conclude that those Christ has resurrected are His enemies anymore.

Reply: Again see Annihilationism and Revelation 20; we have good reason to conclude that  those in the lake of fire are enemies of God. 

Argument 6 - God delaying the day of judgment argument

Objection K:  the assumption that OP is making is that every single reference to future judgement from the different authors’ perspectives is the same event. It could be, it could not be, but that’s the point of contention.

Reply: This is a strawman fallacy. No where did I say that "every single reference to future judgement from the different authors’ perspectives is the same event.". 

Objection L: Is Peter speaking of an impending national judgement at the hands of the Romans, or a still future eschatological judgement dealing with the afterlife?....Presuming OP affirms eternal Conscious Torment, this presents a problem. It would strongly suggest that, if a future judgement, then Annihilationism would be the exegetically appropriate interpretation. Given OP’s final link, I assume he doesn’t affirm Annihilationism. This is a problem for him if he wants a futurist interpretation of 1 Peter, as well as maintain ECT.

Reply: This is too vague to comment on; You will have to specify which verses you speak of. 

Argument 7 - the removal argument

Objection L: I’m sorry to bang this drum again, but, having a preterist interpretation provides no issue between this passage and universalism. This event already happened when the old religious system of Israel was obliterated. The church “kingdom that cannot be shaken” was in fact not shaken when Israel was almost annihilated.

Reply: It seems that the lynchpin of your rebuttal is preterism. So the ball is in your court to show that it's the correct view. 

Objection M:  “For our God is a consuming fire.” ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭12‬:‭29‬ ‭NKJV‬‬. As I’ve mentioned, what the purpose and nature of this fire is would have to be examined, but if this fire indeed is a purifying fire,...

Reply: This objection relies on the word "IF" - "if this fire indeed is a purifying fire..."  Well is it? Where is the argument that it is? 

Objection N: then the context suggests that this is the kind of God who’s judgements, always are from the expression of love, as the author stated earlier:  ‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭12‬:‭5‬-‭7‬

Reply: To whom do you think the author was speaking to? That's an important element of the context to consider. The preceding was Hebrews 11, the great chapter about those who are walking by faith.  Do all walk by faith? No. In context this to fgaithful believers; you are taking it pout of context to apply it to unrepentant unbelievers 

Are Christians dishonest and obtuse in defining and defending the Old Testament slavery as more akin to voluntary servitude than involuntary chattel slavery?

This post was inspired by this Reddit post which was inspired in part by my Leviticus 25:44-46 Does Not Support Chattel Slavery post

Okay, let's critically evaluate Prudent-Town-6724's argument. [I'll occasionally refer to Prudent-Town-6724 as OP - original post or post]

Prudent-Town-6724 stated purpose is "not seeking to prove that the Bible condones (i.e. allows for and does not prohibit) chattel slavery of the form that existed in the old Confederacy". OP's argument is that the blatant dishonesty, special pleading and wilful obtuseness that apologists and deniers wilfully engage in to deny the claim is itself a very strong argument against Christianity. [sic]

So OP intends to prove those who defend OT slavery as voluntary indentured servitude are:

1) blatantly dishonest,
2) special pleading and
3) are willfully obtuseness

Definitions:

Special pleading is applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. [source]

Obtuseness is : 1) lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect : insensitive, stupid 2) difficult to comprehend : not clear or precise in thought or expression [source]

First, OP literally says that the argument being presented assumes that the Old Testament condones chattel slavery. The first premise is a blatant presumption. 

And we all know what Christopher Hitchens said about unsupported assertions: "what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence" or wiki puts it: the burden of proof regarding the truthfulness of a claim lies with the one who makes the claim; if this burden is not met, then the claim is unfounded, and its opponents need not argue further in order to dismiss it

Second, The OP says that slavery in the Old Testament is chattel slavery because it's self-evident, meaning not needing to be demonstrated or explained or obvious. [source] Thus, Prudent-Town-6724's argument is claiming that:

1. Reason is not needed.
2. A sound argument is not needed.
3. Facts are not needed
4. Critical evaluation of the data is not needed.

Question 1: What can be "proven" given those criteria? 

Answer: anything and everything. Even self-contradictory ideas and diametrically opposed ideas.

Sorry, Prudent-Town-6724, but reason is the basis of all knowledge via the inference to the best explanation 

The only thing that the OP puts forward as support is some sort of "consensus of experts" - i.e Importantly, there is not a single secular academic who would deny that the Bible does condone it. But we know how faulty that can be,  And when I say consensus of experts I do not mean their opinion, I mean their careful consideration of the relevant data. However, an uncomfortable fact it is to acknowledge even an expert [or most or all experts] in careful consideration of the relevant data can be wrong. If all you care about is the consensus of experts, then you have abandoned reason and critical thinking. Sorry, but that is intellectually dangerous.

I absolutely reject the "consensus of experts" as a substitute for one's own critical thinking. I'm not discounting experts, I am saying that one should critically evaluate their arguments. No one is above that kind of criticism for evaluation.

Question 2: How valid would the OP, as well as atheists and other critics of Christianity, consider this statement: The Christian God's existence is self-evident and obvious, as well is Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross?

If the OP does not accept this, then the OP is committing a Special pleading fallacy, the same thing that OP accused Christians of.

Question 3: Where does OP show that Christians are blatantly dishonest or willfully obtuse? Or even engage in Special pleading?

Answer: Prudent-Town-6724 doesn't. The argument is "I assume X therefore anyone who disagrees with me is blatantly dishonest or willfully obtuse" That's it, the entire argument.

Unfortunately, Prudent-Town-6724's attempt to show how shallow and weak the Christian view is it backfired. If this is the best critics can do, then they are in a very deep intellectual vacuum. 

FYI - A mod deleted this from Reddit because it contained a "personal attack"

Prudent-Town-6724 responds  It is entirely reasonable to rely upon an academic consensus that has existed for centuries. I assume you don't personally investigate dating for every event in ancient history or commonly repeated claims about astronomy, which for example depend upon academic views that are only looked at by a tiny handful of people.

Reply: I don't know why "the scholarly consensus has been proven wrong again and again" it's such a difficult concept to understand.  One can read the arguments made by scholars and glean data from it; but to think that it's an aspect of critical thinking to just accept who somebody says without a detailed inspection or investigation is foolish and unreasonable

 
Prudent-Town-6724: Thinking that oneself, while lacking specialist knowledge or qualifications, can overturn the academic consensus requires a lack of critical thinking, not the opposite. As it depends upon an inflated sense of one's own capacities and unduly deprecatory view of specialists. Moreover, in your previous post arguing the Bible does not support slavery I posted several points of rebuttal to which you never responded.In particular, the centrepiece of your claim is claiming the anti-kidnap proves no chattel slavery. This IS obtuse because as I indicated earlier, Roman law prohibited kidnapping but was also a slave society. It also ignores Deuteronomy 20:10-14 which clearly provides one means by which people can be seized as " plunder" (ie slaves).

Reply: This is a bit of Whataboutery - a rhetorical trick of responding to criticism with a counter criticism instead of a defense against the original comment.

Prudent-Town-6724: I feel people like you do not engage in these arguments in good faith, but simply try to turn it into a contest of endurance in which by repeating the same nonsense ad infinitum you can drown out the truth

Reply: If you are not going to address the point I'm making, why would I go off on a tangent of your making? 

cod3man responds 

You can't DECIDE to believe in something.

Critics say:

You can't DECIDE to believe in something.

You can't decide to believe that invisible pink elephants exist.

You can't decide to believe that invisible pink elephants exist.

You can't decide to believe that God exist.

You can delude yourself, but deep down you know it's not real.

That is all true, but you can decide to fairly evaluate the facts, evidence, and arguments to evaluate questions like:

1) Is reason the basis for all knowledge? If not reason, then what is it? Can you defend this sans reason?

2) Do you acknowledge that the inference to the best explanation is how most if not all field of inquiry gain knowledge? Meaning, the hypothesis or theory that best explains all [or most] of the data is held to be true.

 
3) What is reality, and how do you know?

4) What best explains the origin of physical reality?

5) What best explains the origin of information in DNA?

6) What best explains human reasoning?

7) What best explains morality?

8) Is there one hypothesis that best explains all of those questions?

One explanation would be a rational, extremely powerful, intelligent designer, moral person, existing outside the physical part of reality. What most would call God. 

What is the naturalistic explanation for all of those things above? 

The resurrection of Jesus is not historical - a rebuttal

 This is a rebuttal of an argument presented on Reddit;  This is an outline of the argument presented:

Two claims

1. That “assertion” that Jesus Christ rose is theological not historical. 
2. The gospels and acts do not provide sufficient historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

(These are reiterated in the conclusion)

Sources that Christian use (the Gospels and Acts) do not meet the criteria that historians use, which are:

• Numerous 
• contemporary [to the time question]
• independent
• Impartial
• consistent with other sources

Christian sources have the following issues

A - Are of a late date

B - Are not eyewitness accounts

C - are anonymous

D - akin to the telephone 

E - Use only one source 

F - Are contradictory 

G - are biased 

Further points

I - Salem witch trials, and eyewitness accounts are unreliable, 80% failure rate to ID per Robert Buckhout 

J - The “floodgate” problem: …”Christians would have to accept religions that conflict with their beliefs like Mormonism (unless you were already Mormon), Islam, Hinduism, etc.” and all reports of “events of magic everywhere, even today”

K - Appeal to empirical observation empiricism

The rebuttal

A - Are the Gospels and Acts late?

First there is no argument presented for this. Selected scholars are cited, and a conclusion is drawn.  I could cite scholars who hold to a pre 70 A.D. date New Testamant . But the problem with this whole line of argumentation is that consensus isn’t critical thinking. Here is Bart Erhman:  I need to say that again: scholarly consensus is not evidence. But big but – if you have a view that is different from the view of the scholarly consensus, given the circumstance of who maintains the consensus, you probably should have some pretty amazing evidence of your own.

So, it comes down to who has the best explanation for the available data. But we cannot evaluate which argument the best explains data because there is NO argument presented, only the conclusions of selected scholars that are presumed to be correct. 

Remember the scholarly consensus was that the Hittites were a fictious people since there was no archaeological or historical evidence to support their existence. Except for the Biblical record and that “biased” piece of fiction certainly couldn’t be trusted in this matter. Until it could be  This is one of many examples where the “scholarly consensus” was proven wrong. So we have no reason to simply accept any scholarly consensus 

 As I argued here]the Gospels and Acts, the entire New Testament, in fact, is early. In short  the Jewish War in 66 , the Neronian persecution of the late 60s , the fall of Jerusalem in 70; there is no mention of the death of Peter, Paul, or James at the hands of the Sanhedrin in ca. 62, which is recorded by Josephus in Antiquities of the Jews 20.9.1.200. Luke had no problem recording the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts 7:58) or James of Zebedee (Acts 12:2). And yet, Luke writes nothing about the deaths of Peter, Paul, and James. These were the three central leaders of the early church, but Luke doesn’t even hint at their deaths. Easy to explain if none of the their deaths had yet to happen. 

A question

Do atheists/critics here also rail against the “myth” of Alexander the Great? If not, why not?

Alexander the Great lived ~356-323 BCE, but we only know about him due to: 

Diodorus Siculus' Library of History - c. 30 BCE  [350 yrs later]

Quintus Curtius Rufus' Histories of Alexander the Great - c. 40 CE [360 yrs later]

Plutarch's Life of Alexander - c. 100 CE [425 yrs later]

Arrian's Anabasis of Alexander - c. [450 yrs later]

Justin's Epitome of Pompeius Trogus - c. 200 CE [525 yrs later]

This seems to be a double standard fallacy that is consistently used by atheists/critics; Judging the historicity of Jesus by one measure and the historicity of others ancients by a different standard. 

B - Are not eyewitness accounts

The only “argument” presented is the scholarly consensus of a late date. And thus any eyewitness would be long dead. However since we have good reason to believe that the New Testament was written early – see above – then there is no reason to discount the plentiful eyewitness accounts of the Risen Jesus 

C - are anonymous

Anonymity of the sources is not a death sentence for a historical document and should not be used as some kind of indictment of any anonymous ancient text. 

If rejecting an anonymous document is a standard used historians, I am have not been able to confirm it,  in fact, historians do allow for the use of anonymous texts to establish historical facts. See Gottschalk,  A Guide to Historical Method p 169 – If you have a source controverting this please provide it. 

Craig Evans adds an even stronger argument concerning the “anonymous” Gospels. He states, “In every single text that we have where the beginning or the ending of the work survives, we find the traditional authorship.” full argument here 

If we have people arbitrarily attaching names to the Gospels throughout the centuries, why is it that we don’t see that in the extant documents?  Why do we see only “Matthew” attached to Gospel attributed to him? And the same for Mark, Luke, and John?  

Evans summarizes, *“There are no anonymous copies of the Gospels, and there are no copies of the canonical Gospels under different names. Unless evidence to the contrary should surface, we should stop talking about anonymous Gospels and late, unhistorical superscriptions and subscriptions"* Craig A. Evans, Jesus and the Manuscripts: What We Can Learn from the Oldest Texts, page 53

D - akin to the telephone game

The Bible was not translated similarly to how the telephone game is played. The telephone game is designed to be confusing for the sake of fun. The Biblical authors did everything they could to preserve the accuracy of the biblical texts.

Oral traditions were involved in preserving some biblical texts, but this does not mean the oral traditions were not scrutinized and transmitted correctly. Similar to how a martial art is taught, repetition was used and perfection was expected by Jewish teachers. 

Oral culture is a culture in which stories are learned and passed on primarily by word of mouth. Those people tend not to rely on written accounts. Because the United States and Western Europe are not oral cultures, many people in these cultures struggle to understand how facts can be reliably communicated orally. But there is ample evidence that people who do live in oral cultures are capable of seemingly near-impossible feats of memory and accuracy.

The telephone game:

a) the message is heard and passed along one person at a time,

b) there are no controls over the message,

c) there is no cost attached to reliable or unreliable transmission.

All of this makes it fundamentally different from the oral transmission of the Gospels:

a) The biblical stories were relayed in communities (not one-to-one),

b) when the stories were shared in community, many people knew the stories and would correct mistakes relayed in the retelling,

c) the people retelling the stories had a strong personal interest in the truthfulness of what they were saying, especially when persecution of the church increased.

The telephone game is irrelevant to how the oral tradition worked.

E - Use only one source

The further back in time one travels, the thinner the source material becomes. Sources for WWII are vast beyond the ability of anyone to master them. Sources for the Napoleonic era is abundant and more than adequate. Sources for the Hundred Years War are meager and somewhat fragmentary. For the Carolingian Period, one really needs to dig deep to adequately cover any topic. The Roman Empire is a jigsaw puzzle missing a significant number of pieces. Ancient civilizations are lucky to have one source to an event. 

Let one example suffice: the details of the demise of Pliny the Elder while he was attempting to rescue a group of Pompeiians when Vesuvius exploded in 79 AD are known from **one source only** - the report written by his son, Pliny the Younger, who was also present that day.

So to have one source for a historical event is not unheard of in history. And to reject the Gospels and Acts on the basis is to be guilty of the Special pleading  fallacy

The similarities among the synoptic gospels, the whole basis for the synoptic problem are vastly overstated; see this harmony of the Gospels and see how dissimilar they actually are. 

Secondly, the similarities are better explained as artifacts of relying on the same witnesses or of different witnesses relating the same events. 

F - Are contradictory

For every alleged contradiction there are better explanations of the passage in question. But let’s look at the specific contradictions mentioned.

Note: A logical contradiction is the conjunction of a statement S and its denial not-S. In logic, it is a fundamental law- the law of non contradiction- that a statement and its denial cannot both be true at the same time.

Many atheists/critics fail to recognize in their critique of the Bible that additional information is not necessarily contradictory information. Many also fail to realize that these independent writers are at liberty to mention every detail, or as few as they want.

What is also fun to note is that atheists/critics will allege that the Gospel writers “copied” one another, then in the same breathe show differences, which undermines their first point!

Did Jesus carry his cross the entire way himself, or did Simon of Cyrene carry it (John 19:17, Mark 15:21, Matthew 27:32, and Luke 23:26)?

Both carried the cross.  John 19:17 does not say that Jesus carried the cross alone the **entire** distance or that **only** Jesus carried the cross,  it says he bore his own cross, which He did. A contradiction occurs when one statement makes another statement impossible but both are supposed to be true.  John not adding that detail doesn’t equal a contradiction. 

Did both thieves mock Jesus, or did only one of them mock him, and the other come to his defense (Mark 15:32, Matthew 27:44, and Luke 23:40-43)? 

While Luke 23:39 does say “ One of the criminals…” this is not the same thing as ONLY one of the thief reviled Jesus.  Recording how one person was doing something is **not** the same thing as saying ONLY one person did something..

Luke seems to be relating what was specifically said by one of the thieves. Both men can be reviling Jesus in the beginning but later one of the thief has a change of heart. 

What did the women see in the tomb, one man, two men, or one angel (Mark 16:5, Luke 24:4, and Matthew 28:2)? 

First, wherever there are two angels [or men] , there is also one! The fact that Mark only referenced the angel (“man”) who addressed the women shouldn’t be problematic. The fact that Matthew only referenced one angel does not preclude the fact that two angels were present.

Even though Luke did not specifically refer to the two men as angels, the fact that he described these beings as “men in clothes that gleamed like lightning” (Luke 24:4) should have been a dead giveaway. Moreover, he was  addressing a predominantly Gentile audience, Luke no doubt measured his words carefully so as not to unnecessarily give rise to their pagan superstitions.

Finally, after reading the accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, or John for that matter, any critical thinker has ample data to determine that the “man” described by Mark was an angel; that the “men in clothes that gleamed like lighting” were angelic; and that Matthew’s mention of only one angel does not preclude the possibility that another was present.

Did the disciples never leave Jerusalem, or did they immediately leave and go to Galilee (Luke 24:49-53, Acts 1:4, and Matthew 28:16)?

Three times in Matthew, it is recorded that certain disciples of Jesus were instructed to meet the Jesus in Galilee after his resurrection (Matt 26:32; 28:7, 10). In Matthew 28:16 we see that the disciples went to Galilee. So, Jesus desired to meet with his disciples in Galilee. His disciples obeyed. Jesus did not rebuke them.

But, according to Luke 24:33-43, he also desired to meet with them in Jerusalem. The two places are about three  days journey from one another. People can't be in the same place at the same time, so this is a contradiction, right?

We must remember that the resurrection accounts of Jesus are coming from different, independent witnesses, So, a reasonable explanation is that Jesus met with his disciples in both places - but at different times. It appears that on Easter Day, he met with all of the disciples (except Thomas) in Jerusalem just as the Gospel writers Luke and John recorded (Luke 24:33-43; John 20:19-25). 

We know that Jesus appeared to the disciples a number of times during the forty days on earth after his resurrection (cf. 1 Cor 15:1-7). Matthew, Luke, and John only mention some of the more prominent instances. Though Luke does not mention the trip to Galilee, in Acts 1:3 he states that there was a forty day period before Jesus' ascension. A lot can happen in forty days; including a three day trip.

(1) Assuming Jesus' words were stated on Easter Day, they were not stated in an absolute sense, but with an implied contingency (as determined from the other 3 Gospel accounts), given a future planned meeting in Galilee.

(2) The words in Luke 24:44 could have been stated on Day 40. The disciples did in fact stay in Jerusalem for ten more days, until Pentecost, as Luke himself relates in Acts 1:13.

It's merely an assumption to assert that Jesus spoke Luke 24:44 on Easter Day. The use of the Greek "de" (meaning "and," "then," or "now") to begin Luke 24:44 does not necessitate immediacy, but merely at "a time after." Witnesses do not always share things in chronological order - this includes the Gospel writers as well. The Gospels jump from topic to topic without any warnings at times (see Luke 4:1-4; Matt 4:1-11). At times information is just skipped; just like we skip it today.

 Both statements can be true. Just because information is omitted in one statement does not make the other statement false. In Luke 24, the post-resurrection appearances of Jesus in Galilee were omitted, but commented upon by both Matthew and John. However, notice that Luke never stated that Jesus remained only in Jerusalem from the day of his resurrection until the day he ascended up into Heaven. Acts 1:3 leaves a lot of room for a lot more activity (cf. John 21:25).

G – are biased

This objection eats itself. Everyone is biased. If the objection is to rejected any and all biased accounts, then all accounts must be tossed.  

I - The “floodgate” problem: …”Christians would have to accept religions that conflict with their beliefs like Mormonism (unless you were already Mormon), Islam, Hinduism, etc.” and all reports of “events of magic everywhere, even today”

When Christians say, or at least this Christian says, the supernatural what is meant is that a physical only model of the world is illogical we have good reason to think that [the universe was fine-tuned for life, the origin of DNA is best explianed by design the best explaination for all that is God 

 Anything "supernatural" must be in that context. 

J - eyewitness accounts are unreliable, 80% failure rate to ID per Robert Buckhout

This was  “A mock crime, a mugging and purse snatch, was staged as representative of the usually difficult observation conditions present in crime situations”

This study is mis-applied]

On one hand we have someone who was 

1) unknown to the witnesses, 

2) who was seen only for a few seconds, and 

3) who changed his appearance - a slight mustache during the crime but not in the lineup film 

Versus Jesus who 

1) walked, talked, taught, ate with His disciples [and others] for 42 months, then 

2) post Resurrection, who walked, talked, taught, ate with His disciples [and others] for a time and 

3) didn’t change His appearance [though He did hide who He was for some, temporarily] 

So we are comparing apples to oranges here. For an analogy to be a valid analogy the comparison between two objects must be similar. Given the above there is too much dissimilarity for this to be a reasonable or justifiable analogy. 

K - Appeal to empirical observation empiricism

Reason is the basis of knowledge not empirical observation. And we know that Philosophical Naturalism is logically self-defeating, so any who hold to that idea need to address how they ground goal-oriented, critical thinking in a physical-only model of the world where all things are caused by the antecedent physical condition acting in accordance with the physical laws.

Those that do not hold to Philosophical Naturalism, I’d ask what then is the objection to something acting outside the bounds of the physical laws? 

Conclusion:

The two claims revisited:

1 - That “assertion” that Jesus Christ rose is theological not historical. 

First, we see the OP attempted to Poison the well (a pre-emptive ad hominem strike against an opponent). Here it’s suggested that all Christians have are assertions not arguments grounded in facts. Why do that unless one is not confident of one’s view being able to compete and an intellectual discussion?

Secondly, the main (only?) argument is basically a presumption of naturalism or as Ruse puts it “but to act as if [naturalism] were” while evaluating data. 

Thirdly, given the arguments linked above we do have good reason to think that, sans the presumption of naturalism, the Resurrection of Jesus is historical. 

2 - The gospels and acts do not provide sufficient historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Given the above we do have good reasons to think that the evidence presented in the Gospels and Acts are exactly what was the criteria that historians use:

• Numerous 

• contemporary [to the time question]

• independent

• consistent with other sources

I left out “impartial” since no one is impartial.

I think this argument was an example of skeptical thinking, but skeptical thinking is not critical thinking It’s a low bar to sow doubt. The higher bar is to offer a better explanation  for the facts surrounding the Resurrection of Jesus).

Objection A - human testimony is obviously not sufficient to establish such a suspension of natural laws occured. There is no way to grant the resurrection of Jesus without opening a floodgate of millions of other supernatural claims

Reply - First, can you explan why its "obvious" human testimony is obviously not sufficient to establish such a suspension of natural laws? 

Second I'm not saying not saying that any human testimony can establish a suspension of natural laws; I am saying that since a physical-only model of reality is illogical, and that God is the best explanation for reality, and that [the universe was fine-tuned for life, the origin of DNA is best explianed by design the best explaination for all that is God thus thest Best explaination for the facts surround Jesus is that He rose from the dead. 

Objection B - There is no way to grant the resurrection of Jesus without opening a floodgate of millions of other supernatural claims

Reply - I guess you didn't read the  “floodgate” problem above

Objection C - What puzzles me is that an omniscient god could have anticipated skeptical reaction and preempted it by arranging conditions such that the resurrection was extraordinarily well attested.

Reply: There is more than enough evidence, but nothing can overcome, chronic skepticism - a suspicion about everything, that's a sickness. Suspicion means you've made a foregone conclusion; that's why one should be a critical thinker not skeptical thinker. 

Objection D - Jesus could have been a real person who was mythologized after his death.

How does one then explain the empty tomb? Various theories are examnied here 

Objection E - You are presupposing that the Bible must be accurate

For investigatory purposes one must assume that a text or testimony is accurate.  For example, when police take statements regarding an incident they assume that the statements are true and accurate then they can look for inconsistencies errors etc.  Assuming the document is the beginning of the investigation, not the end.  If one concludes that the document is true and accurate then there must be solid reasons for it. 

Objection E -You trying to control the narrative of what exactly is a "contradiction."

It's the law of non contradiction [one of the fundamental laws of logic] connect contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense and at the same time. If you think you have a better attested definition please provide it

Chattel Slavery is NOT Endorsed or Condoned in the Bible

So I listened to the lecture in the Youtube link from this Reddit thread by Joshua Bowen. Now I’m more convinced than ever that: “Chattel Slavey is not Endorsed or Condoned in the Bible” [thesis statement]

First, I was struck by the definition of slavery that was used: A condition in which An individual or rights to their labor is owned by another either temporarily or permanently; the owner controls and benefits from their actions and activities of the owned individual.

But this is overly broad - An employer today could be seen as “owning slaves” under this definition. Since when one clocks into work their employer “owns the rights to their labor” and “benefits from their actions or activities”, even though it's a temporary situation. And yes, one could say that the employee is benefiting as well [paycheck - healthcare] but so would an indentured servant in the OT [food, housing, paying off debt, taking from the flock, threshing floor, winepress upon leaving per DT 15:12-14

This definition allows him to equivocate and conflate two very different ideas. 1) a temporary, voluntary situation where one commits oneself to work to pay off a debt, and 2) permanent, involuntary labor for another. Perhaps this is because Bowen thinks that “Any type of slavery is atrocious” and that slavery is horrible in every circumstance - [quotes from the Q/A section about the 1:20 mark] But this seems to be an a-priori conclusion that drives his analysis. I say this because what is horrible and/or atrocious about indentured-servitude - i.e. paying off one’s debt?

Debt slavery wasn't very different from our concept of employment: working for someone else so you could pay off your debts. We call it employment; they called it bond-slavery or indebted-servanthood

Furthermore "Scholars do not agree on a definition of "slavery." The term has been used at various times for a wide range of institutions, including plantation slavery, forced labor, the drudgery of factories and sweatshops, child labor, semivoluntary prostitution, bride-price marriage, child adoption for payment, and paid-for surrogate motherhood. Somewhere within this range, the literal meaning of "slavery" shifts into metaphorical meaning, but it is not entirely clear at what point. A similar problem arises when we look at other cultures. The reason is that the term "Slavery" is evocative rather than analytical, calling to mind a loose bundle of diagnostic features. These features are mainly derived from the most recent direct Western experience with slavery, that of the southern United States, the Caribbean, and Latin America. The present Western image of slavery has been haphazardly constructed out of the representations of that experience in nineteenth-century abolitionist literature, and later novels, textbooks, and films...From a global cross-cultural and historical perspective, however, New World slavery was a unique conjunction of features...In brief, most varieties of slavery did not exhibit the three elements that were dominant in the New World: slaves as property and commodities; their use exclusively as labor; and their lack of freedom [Encyclopedia of Cultural Anthropology (4 vols), David Levinson and Melvin Ember (eds), HenryHolt:1996.4:1190]

A better definition of chattel slavery would seem to be a situation that includes one who is 1) involuntarily owned, 2) treated as property and 3) used as forced labor since this is in agreement with what most reference as chattel slivery - that of the antebellum South.

To further complicate things the same Hebrew word ebed is translated as servant, slave, worshippers (of God), servant (in special sense as prophets, Levites etc), servant (of Israel), servant (as form of address between equals. This is a major problem for those who contend that the Bible condones chattel slavery since that concept is not in the word ebed. Critics seemingly just presume that any time they see the word "slavery" it must = chattel slavery. But there is no reason from the text or context that this is true

I also want to touch on the word buy - The word transmitted “buy” refers to any financial transaction related to a contract such as in modern sports terminology a player can be described as being bought or sold the players are not actually the property of the team that has them except in regards to the exclusive right to their employment as players of that team - [Stuart, Douglas K.. Exodus: (The New American Commentary) (KL:13449)

Secondly, Bowen sees himself as a “conduit of Biblical scholarship” and that “Everything I say is consensus biblical scholarship”, He wants “To be able to say to a non-specialist, ‘here is what they all say about this topic’” Conservative and liberal scholars “all agree on this topic“ [starting at the 1:14 mark]

Two problems. First, arguing by citing "consensus" isn’t scholarship, it’s an attempt to appeal to authority [he’s a scholar who insists that all scholars agree with him [so who would even think to disagree with that deck stacked against you?] - but scholarly consensus can be incorrect as the Geocentric model of the universe was the scholarly consensus until it was proven false.

Secondly, not all scholars agree with him - shocking as it sounds, it’s true.

Owing to the existence of numerous designations for the non-free and manumitted persons in the first millennium BC. throughout Mesopotamia in history some clarification have the different terms in their particular nuances is necessary the designations male slave and female slave though common in many periods of Mesopotamian history are rarely employed to mean chattel slave in the sixth Century BC in the neo-babylonian context they indicate social subordination in general [Kristin Kleber, Neither Slave nor Truly Free: The Status of Dependents of Babylonian Temple Households]

Westbrook states :At first sight the situation of a free person given and pledged to a creditor was identical to slavery The pledge lost his personal freedom and was required to serve the creditor who supported the pledges labor. Nevertheless the relationship between the pledge and the pledge holder remained one of contract not property. [Rachel Magdalene, Slavery between Judah and Babylon an Exilic Experience, cited in fn]

Mendelshon writes: The diversity of experiences and realities of enslaved people across time and place as well as the evidence that enslaved persons could and did exercise certain behaviors that would today be described as “freedoms”, resist inflexible legal or economic definitions. Economic treatises and legal codes presented slaves ways as chattel while documents pertaining to daily life contradict this image and offer more complex picture of slavery in the near East societies. Laura Culbertson, Slaves and households in the Near East

Some of the misunderstanding of the biblical laws on service/slavery arises from the unconscious analogy the modern Western Hemisphere slavery, which involved the stealing of people of a different race from their homelands, transporting them in chains to a new land, selling them to an owner who possess them for life, without obligation to any restriction and who could resell them to someone else. Weather one translates “ebed as” servant, slave, employee, or worker it is clear the biblical law allows for no such practices in Israel Stewart Douglas, id]

I’m not citing these scholars to disprove Bowen’s view per se but just to demonstrate that not all scholars agree with him.

So the question of chattel slavey and the Bible must be addressed not by fallacies but by data

These are the passages where Bowen attempts to make his case:

Exodus 21:2-6

Bowen contends that the male slave only has 2 options, remain a permanent slave or go free as a single man as the wife remains a permanent slave. But this is simply untrue,

1) He could negotiate a marriage payment for his wife/kids. (Slaves did have to pay betrothal fees:… they were capable of owning property and could pay betrothal money or fines. [History of Ancient Near Eastern Law. Raymond Westbrook],

2) We know that a person could continue to work/provide services inside a household (as a post-servant) and earn the bride-price, like Jacob did for Rachel and Leah (7 years for each),

3) Some of the gifts the master was supposed to send him out with at his release could be used as marriage payment see Deut 15:12-14

Exodus 21:7-11 Bowen contends this condones sex slavery.

Since the Bible teaches monogamy, any sort of sex slavery is simply out of the question. Later in the video Bowen contends that the Bible is not a text that has “one voice”; it has many contradictory voices so the answer that this was a marriage arrangement is simply not considered even though in context it does speak of the woman’s “marital rights”. Vs 10

Exodus 21:20-21 - Bowen is upset by the beating of slave/servant but is seemingly unaware that this treatment was no more severe than what the community/elders could do with a regular, free citizens. Being punished by the legal system via rod-beating was common in the Bible Deut 25.1-3; Prov 10.13; 26.3), as could rebellious older sons (Prov 13.24; 22.15; 23.13). Perhaps you do not agree with corporal punishment, but that is a different discussion.

Proverbs 29:19-21 I’m not sure why Bowen brought this up. If you’ve ever encountered someone who is undisciplined, lacking self-control or good behaviour then you know how true this passage is.

Exodus 21:26-27

Bowen cites lex talionis - the law of retaliation, whereby a punishment resembles the offense committed in kind and degree. His complaint is that the owner should have his eye/tooth knocked out, not for the slave/servant to go free. But wouldn’t the slave/servant rather go free then the former? And is this consequence in addition to lex talionis, and not a replacement?

Deuteronomy 15:12-18 Bowen seems to have concerns with slave/servant staying in this position

It is important to point out that When a Hebrew slave/servant goes free after their 6th year they do not go out empty handed - They are given liberally out of your flock, out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress. See verses 13-14. If the slave/servant desires to stay permanently he may; but why would any want to? Given the economic realities of the times being a servant may have been the better option then going it alone.

LK 17: 7-10 Bowen contends that this shows 1) the reality of slavery during Jesus’ time, 2) the appropriateness of drawing on that reality for the analogy, 3) the complete lack of condemnation of slavery.

But again, what is meant by slavery? Chattel slavery? No, Bowen has failed to make the case that "ebed" must mean chattel slavery. Indentured servanthood/employment? That fits the passage perfectly; indentured servanthood/employment was 1) a reality during Jesus’ time, and was thus 2) appropriate for the analogy. And Jesus would 3) have no reason to condemn servanthood/employment.

Lev 25: 44-46 - this is the “big one” as it supposedly 1) Allows chattel slaves from other nations/strangers, 2) who become property, 3) passed down to children, 4) for life

But let’s slow down a bit. Bowen has yet to [and in fact never does] say how/why he gets “chattel slave” from “ebed”. So the passage above can mean, and most likely does mean "servants". As Stuart notes above, "buy" means financial transaction related to a contract.

And note that vs 45 and 46 say that they may be your property and bequeath them to your sons. It doesn’t say must or will, but it wasn't required or nor could it be imposed by force. Given that this passage loses all of it bite

The verses that that critics ignore that will further show that Lev 25 cannot mean what they want it to - i.e. that foreigners were chattel slaves.

“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. 34 You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.[Leviticus 19:33-34]

“You shall not oppress a sojourner. You know the heart of a sojourner, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt*. [Exodus 23:9]

*Israel was not free to treat foreigners wrongly or oppress them; and were, in fact to, commanded to love them *

Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death.” [Exodus 21:16, see also 1 Tim 1:9-10]

This is clear that selling a person or buying someone against their will into slavery was punishable by death in the OT

“You must not return an escaped slave to his master when he has run away to you. Indeed, he may live among you in any place he chooses, in whichever of your villages he prefers; you must not oppress him.” [Deuteronomy 23:15–16]

These four passages outlaw chattel slavery in the OT:

1) the Israelites were commanded to treat foreigners well; "shall not oppress", "you shall not do him wrong", "you shall love him as yourself".

2) You cannot steal a person, which means you cannot enslave a person against their will.

3) You cannot sell a person, which means people are not property.

4) If a person working for you wants to leave a slave/servant situation they can, and the Law protects their freedom to do so.

Bowen dismisses DT 23:15-16 by saying that this was referring to other tribes/countries and that Israel was to have no extradition treaty with them. But read it in context and that idea is nowhere to be found; DT 23 is just miscellaneous laws . Verses 1-8 is concerned with who is excluded from the assembly. Verse 9-14 it’s uncleanness in the camp. Verses 17-18 Cult prostitutes, 19-20 interest on loans, 21-23 vows to God, 24-25 conduct in your neighbor’s fields Verses 15-16 refers to slaves, without any mention of their origin. No matter what the cause of their servitude, nor the cause of their refuge, God still says that extradition is NOT to be done!

TL;DR

Chattel slavery means 1) involuntarily owned, 2) treated as property and 3) used as forced labor.

The Hebrew term ‘ebed [slave/servant] designates a range of social and economic roles. Thus no reason to conclude that a use of "ebed" must mean chattel slavery.

The word transmitted “buy” refers to any financial transaction related to a contract.

Israelites had multiple ways out of slavery/servanthood

God definition of marriage precludes any sort of sex slavery.

Beatings were not a punishment reserved for slaves; it was a common punishment even for free persons.

The no kidnap, no buying or selling of people was punishable by death.

The Israelites were commanded not to oppress, but to love foreigners .

The non-return of run away slaves/servants applied to all.