Kantian Naturalist and I have been hopscotching from thread to thread, discussing the nature of religious language. The main point of contention is the assertoric/disclosive distinction: When is religious language assertoric — that is, when does it make claims about reality — and when is it merely disclosive, revealing attitude and affect without making actual claims?
I’ve created this thread as a permanent home for this otherwise nomadic discussion.
It may also be a good place for an ongoing discussion of another form of religious language — scripture. For believers who take scripture to be divinely inspired, the question is when it should be taken literally, when it should be taken figuratively or metaphorically, and whether there are consistent and justifiable criteria for drawing that distinction.
At the least, when it makes historical claims, I guess. Example:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergius_Paulus
The Bible passage:
The author expects people to take the passage literally. Whether true is another debate…
keiths:
Sal:
Here’s an example we’ve been discussing recently:
Does that qualify as a historical claim that should be taken literally, in your view? Do you believe that it actually happened?
My position is that there is a very close relation between assertions and reasons, and also between reasons and universality. If I assert that p, then it is appropriate for anyone to ask for a reason that p (“why p?”). If q is a reason to believe p, then q is a reason for anyone to believe p. So while there are factual domains in which religious domain operates assertorically — in particular when it comes to historical claims — religious discourse is functioning assertorically when it is presented as binding on the conduct of all.
Thus, religious discourse is functioning assertorically when it is presented as reasons for why same-sex couples should not be permitted the legal benefits of marriage, or for why a woman’s right to bodily self-determination does not extend to control over pregnancy, or why climate-change is not a civilization-level threat. Those are all cases where the policy is one that affects everyone, and therefore religious discourse is functioning assertorically and evaluable in epistemic terms.
However, I do not think that religious discourse must be assertoric — if someone says, “I believe in God” or “the universe yearns to understand itself’ or whatever, where that utterance is not binding on others — where there is no normative uptake from others — then it is disclosive of one’s personal experience or expressive of one’s affective states. In saying to you, “I believe in God” I am requesting that you recognize my affective state, or recognize that my experience is meaningful to me, but not that you ought to accept this as a claim.
To be a bit crude, I’m pointing at the difference between saying “I believe in God!” when beholding a beautiful sunset and saying “I believe in God!” when we’re debating a proposed change in public policy.
However, I also think that the use of disclosive language should be sensitive to the epistemological worries we’ve been discussing here, and just to avoid ambiguity, abstain from using the words “belief” and “believe” in disclosive contexts — though in ordinary English, I suspect that “belief” and “believe” are ambiguous between assertoric and disclosive uses.
Let me start by highlighting a couple of KN’s comments from earlier threads and asking if KN still stands behind them.
First:
Do you still believe that, KN?
Second:
Do you stand by that, or do you now agree that much of religious language is in fact assertoric?
Let me start by highlighting that keiths begins by assuming his conclusion. But it’s worse than that. Not only does keiths believe all religious language is “assertoric,” he also believes that all “assertoric” language is intended to be taken literally. And as if that were not enough, when “discussing” religious texts keiths assumes his view is correct and that all other views are wrong, and that his interpretation of those texts is not open to debate, because his literal interpretation of those texts just is what they say (according to keiths).
Subjective keiths.
OldMung:
Wrong and wrong. Mung, you’re being an internet dipshit again.
keiths, true to form, declines to say how I was wrong. Let’s just take it on faith!
keiths is using disclosive language, revealing attitude and affect without making actual claims.
I’ll be an internet dipshit to my dying day if I refuse to defend my claims while also claiming that “I defend my positions.”
Over in the thread on hell keiths insists on the following:
The language in the book of Revelation is assertoric.
As such, the language in the book of Revelation ought to be interpreted literally.
He has defended neither of these claims.
Look, Mung, it’s understandable that you’re stinging right now. An atheist just embarrassed you using the Bible, right after you pompously declared that you didn’t just read the Bible; you studied it.
Making shit up is not going to help you. It just makes you look desperate.
KN,
In case you missed it.
Not quite — I should have made more room for the fact that a religious community can violate the human rights of some of its members, or damage the integrity and health of an ecosystem, even when no one else in any other community is adversely affected.
I now agree that many people do use religious language assertorically; I think that they shouldn’t, not just because doing so puts religious discourse into conflict with assertions justified by scientific practices but also because doing so produces normative violence and thereby conflicts with the ideal of democracy.
keiths,
Keiths,
Thanks for asking.
I personally take that passage in Matthew literally. Other Christians don’t. Goes to show, I don’t think anyone can claim their interpretive methods take priority over anyone else unless they have some illumination from God Himself. Hence, I won’t insist in such matters my understanding is 100% right.
Now as far as the dead rising from tombs in that account, and assuming hypothetically the other accounts of the dead being raised such as:
Lazarus
The young girl
The son of a widow
some other instances in the Bible,
Then there is not immediate reason to say the passage about the dead rising out of their tombs is only figurative. To insist it is then raises the problem of dealing with the other passages where the dead are raised, and also the fact these resurrection events (Lazarus, the little girl, the son of the widow) were put forward as reasons why people followed Jesus.
So in light of that, I take the passage in Matthew as literal.
KN,
Okay, so it sounds like we are still in vehement disagreement over the issue of criticizing religious beliefs — I think that all beliefs should be fair game for criticism, while you think religious beliefs should be exempt.
But we (now) agree that much of religious language is in fact assertoric.
KN,
I don’t understand this. If people genuinely believe something, why shouldn’t they express it?
My aunt believes that hell is real and that my immortal soul is at risk. Ever since I stopped believing she has been encouraging me, in a genuinely loving way, to return to the fold.
Given that she truly believes her beloved nephew is at risk of eternal torment, why shouldn’t she express her belief? It’s the loving thing to do, and I take it that way, though I obviously disagree with her.
Sal,
But then you are accepting that interpretation not because it is more likely to be true, but rather because because it supports your assumed conclusions about the truths of Christianity.
KN,
Believers will tell you that God is real, meaning that he is a genuine being, existing separately from us, in reality. How does that “produce normative violence and thereby conflict with the ideal of democracy”?
Yes. If I could infallibly calculate the odds of being right, then I could contest your assessment, but in this case, I just call the way I estimate is best. Doesn’t mean I have a big or small chance of being right. But in light of wagering decisions, one doesn’t need a huge chance of being right if I believe there is a commensurate payoff. I could of course be wrong about my chances and the payoff, but we all make decisions if we feel forced to, and usually with far less data than we’d like to have in hand.
Sal,
You’re assuming that you can will yourself into sincerely believing something that you don’t have any particular reason for believing, other than the “payoff”. Will God accept your belief as sincere?
Also, you seem to be assuming that either a) Christianity as you understand it is true, or b) atheism is true. What if some other religion is true and you’re pissing off the real God by believing in Yahweh and Jesus?
In other words, your payoff matrix is defective. Someone posted a more accurate payoff matrix at TSZ a while ago. I’ll see if I can find it.
ETA: It was Rumraket. Here’s the matrix.
I did not say that, I rank the odds of Christianity being true higher than other religions, as well as the positive and negative payoffs. Not much of a negative payoff for most religions, compared to those claimed in Christianity.
I already said I could be wrong, but I just move forward as best as I could with what little data I have. You have a problem with anyone doing that? There is no way anyone has the true odds and payoff tables.
But what I am pointing out, atheists, by their own estimate, on an eternal timeline, have a 0% payoff guaranteed. Which means they cannot rationally demonstrate on paper a better expected value than Christianity, which raises the question, “why the heck are they fighting Christianity” except for the fact it makes you feel better in the present, but you know after the galaxy burns out, it won’t count for squat.
At best atheists can only demonstrate an equal expected value by assuming the Christian God has a 0% probability of being true. But as I pointed out elsewhere, miniscule odds with big payoffs count for something — illustrated many times in skilled video poker play that hunts for the elusive royal flush that has a giant payoff. [Many who are skilled a video poker will suffer the same fate as skilled blackjack players — they get kicked out of casinos. I know from personal experience. 🙂 ]
Pascal’s notion of expected values works in theory and in practice, that’s why it is one of the foundational concepts in statistics and some areas of science (like quantum mechanics).
You have a 100% certainty a disaster won’t happen? Then don’t buy extra insurance nor take safety precautions for disasters unless the law requires it (but if you have 100% certainty you won’t be caught and you’re 100% certain it is moral to break the law, I guess you might conclude you can bend the rules).
You have 100% certainty there is no Christian God, fine. But if you have some miniscule doubt, then according to expected values, like taking safety precautions, you should proceed with appropriate caution in dismissing Christian claims.
For me, I’m not wagering abiogenesis is right. Life arose from non-life, and that implies we (humanity) collective rose from the dead. That personally is evidence enough for me to consider there is a God.
But for some the origin of life is not evidence enough for them, as Jesus said, “some will not believe even though someone should rise from the dead.”
Yes, because as spokesperson for GOD you have decided how it will treat atheists, should it actually exist.
What kind of numbers have the wiseguys in Vegas been laying recently? FWIW, last I heard, Christianity is running a fairly distant third.
I dunno. How do you know that doing things because you think they are right, regardless of thinking there’s no pay-off doesn’t rate more highly with the Creator than doing them because you think there’s something in it for you?
What I like best about Pascal’s wager is the underlying morality of it. The courage of the gambler and the ethics of the house.
I’m a closet materialist in many respects. I certainly don’t ever recall saying anything to the effect how wicked and evil atheists are. In fact, I’ve said I’d rather pal around with atheists like the TSZ crowd than ISIS theists….
I even posted this sincerely:
So I have no axe to grind with people who feel God doesn’t exist because they don’t experience His presence in their lives. Changing such a person’s viewpoint is up to God, not me.
But one would be mistaken to think the reason I visit place like TSZ is to persuade anyone here. I visit here to find out what you guys have to say about:
1. the odds
2. the payoffs
In other words, what could be in it for me if I become an atheist. Why will my life be better? What if the OOL problem is solved and additionally Darwin was right? What’s in it for me?
Keiths said if there is no God, then we make our own meaning. Ok, I’ve made my own meaning: “What means something for stcordova is estimated expected valued with what little data we have in hand.”
But going back to the OP, when do I take things literally? Maybe when the evidence leads me there and there is positive EV to be made. I think the emergence of life is a miracle. I used to be an evolutionist, a believer in abiogenesis, a believer in Urey-Miller and the natural progress of dead molecules to living creatures to man walking on the moon.
But later on, I concluded the natural behavior of dead things is to stay dead, therefore life on Earth is a miracle. If there is a miracle, then there is Miracle Maker.
So, I won’t put odds there is no creator at 0%, maybe something non zero, maybe 0.0000001%. Even Jerry Coyne affixes a non-zero value, same with Dawkins. The only one I know of that says 0.0% unequivocally is PZ myers. Taking the mean of the atheist odds makers, that is some non-zero value for creator being true.
P(Creator Exists) = 0.0000001%
P(No Creator) = 99.9999999%
So the atheists put their odds at 99.9999999%, but certainly not 100%.
So I then ask what is the payoff of atheism being right? When I get answers like “you have to make up your own meaning”, I then respond, “ok, what’s meaningful to me is eternal life with God in heaven, so as far as I’m concerned, the payoff of atheism is effectively zero for what I consider valuable and meaningful to me”
Odds x payoff = Expected Value
atheist EV = (99.9999%) x (0) = 0
That’s why I won’t bet my soul on a naturalistic origin of life and why I take the the genealogy of Jesus in Luke chapter 3 as literal, where Adam is the son of God, not some bacterium. As Peter said, when confronted with the chance of leaving the faith:
Peter made a positive EV wager with his soul.
As Camus said someplace, “Truth is better than illusion.”
And, FWIW, If I were God and I saw that the best probability you could give to the existence of my awesomeness was 0.0000001%, I’d burn your ass so fast it’d make the Earth spin in the other direction.
Sal,
And if there is a God, we still make our own meaning.
God can’t supply meaning for us, just as he can’t supply morality for us. As you pointed out, God might order us to kill babies, but we have to decide whether it’s morally acceptable to obey him.
To be dead, you have to have been alive. At the OOL there was nothing that had been alive to become dead. So your conclusion is fatally flawed.
Disclosive keiths.
disclosive: revealing attitude and affect without making actual claims.
I’m ok with that. That’s where my money is. 😉
I’m sure the atheists here are impressed.
KN,
Any response to this and this?
Personally, I was quite flattered to have my company preferred to that of guys who cut off people’s heads and post vids of those events on the internet.
But I’m not stopping there! One of my main goals is to also start challenging various serial killers for consideration when people are looking for a fun dinner companion. I’m coming for you next, Durst!
KN?
KN?
Is there an echo in here?
KN?
KN,
I’m not sure whether you’re overlooking these messages or whether you’d prefer not to respond.
If you’d rather not respond, let me know and I’ll stop asking.
You might consider making an inference, or just tabling it until it comes up again, which no doubt it will.
In my view (as a believer who takes scripture to be divinely inspired), the distinction is not exclusive in the sense that one spot is to be interpreted as literal and another as figurative. To be properly scripture, all verses should be possible to interpret literally (though in context of course), figuratively and esoterically.
These are different kinds of interpretation, all true at the same time, but not equally important. The literal interpretation is the least important, because the literal interpretation is merely historical, pertaining to people and events back then, not to here and now.
For example, Jesus may have walked literally on water, but this is utterly irrelevant to me here and now. A proper interpretation would take it as a metaphor of some spiritual significance relevant to me here and now.
Apologetics sounds like Stockholm Syndrome to me.
Erik,
But you are saying that the interpretations are “all true at the same time”. That means you think the literal interpretation is true, which means that you believe Jesus did in fact walk on water, correct?
And that there was in fact a mass resurrection of people who descended on Jerusalem as described in Matthew 27:50-53, correct?
Also, how do you make sense of the fact that sincere believers differ so radically in their interpretations of scripture? Is God a poor communicator, or does he just not care whether the message gets through?
Yes, I was literally saying this. But I also said that literal interpretation is the least important.
Rather, people are poor at exegesis. But this is not a bad thing to have multiple interpretations. Difference of opinion in these matters makes one reflect more thoroughly before settling on an interpretation.
The Bible is not my favourite scripture, but it wisely contains instructions on how to interpret it. For example, some evangelist says that a prophecy about Immanuel is really about Jesus. This is a direct indication to not be overly literal.
The gospels would be worthless if they recorded only historical facts. The scriptures have to convey spiritual truths and these are not literal things that one can understand merely by reading. One must be reading with a certain attitude so that appropriate comprehension is possible.
And this is nothing extraordinary. It applies to trivial things too. If you want to understand a writing, you have to learn to read. If you want to understand a book in French, you must learn French. It’s never guaranteed that everybody understands all writings the same way, not even remotely.
Erik,
Do you also contend that the worldwide flood was an historical event?
If so, how do you respond to the massive amount of scientific evidence that no such flood occurred?
Which part of “The literal interpretation is the least important” is unclear to you? I literally don’t care to what extent the event literally happened. That it literally happened to some extent at some time is beyond dispute (or are you ready to deny similar folk stories all around the world?), but the lesson of the story matters more.
This applies to everything. It may be a fact that the lion ate the gazelle, but what really matters is how often this happens compared to that gazelles eat lions, what else they eat, how to know if they are on the hunt, etc. Context, perspective, and explanatory scope always matter more than any single fact.
Erik, to Patrick:
Patrick isn’t asking you whether you think the literal interpretation is important, Erik. He’s asking you whether you believe the literal interpretation is true.
The answer seems to be “no”:
The Bible describes a global flood. You appear to be saying that there was a flood, but not a global flood. That means the literal interpretation of the Noah story is false.
How do you reconcile that with your statement that the the interpretations are “all true at the same time”?
Erik,
Except that people don’t settle on the same interpretation — not by a long shot.
One would expect that the omniscient and omnipotent creator of the universe would be a good communicator, able to convey his intended meaning to his audience. Why is he so bad at it? Is it a lack of skill, or does he just not care?
Of course, the obvious answer is that the Bible is not divinely inspired. It was written by fallible humans without divine guidance, so you’d expect it to share the flaws of other human writings.
The answer was provided. It was “yes” with some perspective (because context is important). Then the question was repeated. This tells me nobody’s listening.
What does “all the world” mean in “And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered” (KJV) ?
Seriously, we disagree even about the literal meaning of the scriptures, which should make it all the more clear that the literal meaning matters little. And indeed it matters little for several reasons.
It doesn’t mean “all people’s interpretations are true at the same time”. I meant what I said: The literal meaning may be true, but it’s irrelevant to here and now. The relevant meaning matters to here and now, not only to then and there.
In math lessons, to make a really dumb example, kids normally are made to learn the multiplication table up to 100 by heart. Is the idea here to torture kids with the literal numbers? Not really. The idea is to drive home the principle of multiplication, to make it automatic in their thinking. The little facts of 3×3=9 and 7×8=56 matter little. The principle of multiplication matters more, and those who are interested and able to grok the arithmetic principles can apply them to any numbers.
The same applies to spiritual truths. Literal dogmas are mere crutches. To the spiritually blind, literal reading is a direct obstacle, just like lazier and dumber kids never see the rich and orderly principles displayed in their math homework. They only see a tiring pile of pointless numbers.
Erik,
I’m just trying to understand what you mean when you say you take the Bible literally. It’s a simple question: Do you or do you not claim that the worldwide flood as described in the Bible was an historical event? I’m not asking about other flood stories, I’m asking about that particular story that explicitly states that the flood covered the earth.
If you find other messages of value to yourself in that story, that’s great. I’m asking about whether you think it actually happened.
I understand very well what you are trying to understand. The problem is that you are still trying to understand this after I said that the Bible itself indicates that it’s not to be taken literally.
Yes, it’s indeed a simple question. Unfortunately, after I have said that context and perspective always matter more than any single fact, it’s the wrong question.
The Bible literally says that Caesar Augustus wanted to register the world, but he logically couldn’t, so let’s have some perspective, shall we? Similarly, “covered the earth” is quite literally open to interpretation. The flood story also says that “all flesh died” yet fish could not have died. I’d be concerned about these statements if they were meant absolutely literally as per predicate logic, but the Bible itself makes it clear enough that this is not so.
I don’t see that this solves any problems.
Erik,
If you’re interpreting it, then you’re not reading it literally.
That sounds like a flaw in the book. Maybe it’s not so inerrant after all.
I’m basing my questions on this comment of yours:
I understand that you consider the non-literal meaning of the book to be more important to you, but you also seem to be claiming that it is literally true. On the other hand, you talk about interpretation to the extent that “covered the earth” doesn’t really mean “covered the earth.” Do you assert the literal meaning or not?