Biblical circularity.

[Ryft]

[Here is what] I'm asking: apart from presupposing it, is there any other reason to suppose the Bible inerrant?

I cannot speak for Statler, of course, but I suspect that we are on the same page here so I want to offer a clarifying remark on this issue. First, the inerrancy of the scriptural autographs is not itself a presupposed axiom; it is a conclusion drawn from that which is a presupposed axiom, the transcendental truth of God and his self-revelation. The reasoning goes like this: given the nature of God, what he reveals is incapable of error (infallible), and that which is incapable of error obviously does not err (inerrant). Second, if we reason to some X then it is a conclusion, whereas if we reason from some X then it is a presupposition. Thus while there are cases where we reason from the inerrancy of Scripture (as such it is presupposed), we do not do so when that inerrancy is itself the question (which would argue in a circle). In a situation where inerrancy is itself the question, we admit that it is a conclusion and show how it follows; we reason to it, not from it, since it is a conclusion, not an axiom.

Natural selection is a sufficient reason to suppose our senses are reliable.

Natural selection is a mechanism of biological evolution, which assumes that the world our senses perceive is real. Therefore invoking natural selection is question-begging.