A priori (and inerrancy of the Bible)?

Question

What exactly does a priori mean and how is it used in forming arguments and supporting criticism (i.e. in a debate)?

More specifically, can the belief that the Bible is fully inerrant, for example, be described as a priori, and if so, why?

Is a priori negative? Positive? In what situations is it one or the other?

Can you give some examples of a priori beliefs and arguments?

Despite the lack of justification of the belief, do you think some Christians accept the Bible as inerrant a priori? Does a priori make sense in my previous sentence? What are some other examples of beliefs a priori without warrant?

Answer 1

A priori beliefs probably shouldn't come up in everyday arguments. There have been a priori arguments for the existence of god but they tend to be flawed in some serious way. Real a priori arguments tend to be about the fundamental nature of the universe or ethics. To take the bible as true a priori doesn't make sense.

For something to be true a priori, you have to accept that the thing you are talking about it true by definition. The argument that stems from this belief will basically be to show that the assumption is justified. So I say, bachelors cannot be married. Then I talk about how bachelors are by defnition men who are unmarried proving that I can accept bachelors not being married as true a priori.

Things that require experience don't have a priori truths about them in a non-defintional way (this is a big point of contention for Kant but, I kind of hate Kant, anyways). So, I suppose we could say that the bible is god's word, god's word is infallible and therefore the bible is infallible, a priori.

This though is really an argument about the nature of the bible and god. That the bible is infallible really rests on the definitions of god and god's word there. It wouldn't really make sense to just say, the bible is infallible a priori.

Now, what you can do is to say that the bible is true all the time and you don't require proof as a matter of faith. Then the discussion is about whether I'm swayed by the strength of your conviction. Chances are: no, I'm not.

Some other things you can take as a priori true: that math exists, that all bachelors are unmarried men, that physical things have mass. The trend running through these examples is that they are definitionally true or that they essentially cannot be proven but must be true nonetheless.

Physical facts, laws, etc. are not a priori truths. These are things we discover about the world and that require justification in some observational form. The theory of gravity can be disproven by one false instance. This means that it is true a posteriori. A priori truths don't get proven wrong.

Answer 2

I found a pretty good answer at
http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/BluePete/Argument.htm#Priori

"A Priori:-
More fancy Latin words, literally meaning, "from that which comes before." In argument it is where a person, in an effort to prove a further point assumes the validity of some other point. This other point, it is asked, should be accepted as one that may yet be proven, or which the propounder advances as axiomatic. In other words, one is asked to accept something as knowledge without the benefit of any prior experience (empirical evidence), this knowledge, it is said, comes about a priori. This approach is often the only way to begin any argument, but should not be resorted to during the course of argument; further, one should always bear in mind, that the resolution to any argument, must, of necessity, be dependent on the "beginning assumptions." While there are some things in this world that simply must be accepted without proof as being axiomatic, an assumption or assumptions always weaken one's argument and should be eschewed as a bad practice."

Whether an a priori argument is positive or negative depends on how it is used as well as how justified we are in believing the initial assumption. Given the many criticisms for the bible (not to mention historical editings, translation errors, etc.), I for one would find it all but impossible to accept the bible as being inerrant. Things I _would_ accept as a priori would be physical laws, or things very strongly supported by evidence.