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.
All the Abrahamic religions have, as a matter of practice, had periods of militarism and colonialism. Judaism never seems to have been big on conversion, but its alternative was even more horrific.
I think when you speak of practice you need to consider that post-enlightenment practice may not be the same as religious practice. It may, in fact, be secular practice.
It’s certainly true that the Jewish Enlightenment, or Haskalah, saw a major liberalization in Jewish practice. Since traditional Judaism was an orthopraxic religion, the liberalization of practice as Jews assimilated into modernity raised very acute questions about Jewish identity that we’ve been struggling with ever since.
In Reform, Reconstruction, and Conservative Judaism, there are lively and intense debates going back in the late 19th century about “Jewishness”, and those debates are still going on today — we see this for example in how we conduct debates about whether there are limits to a Jewish critique of Israel, can one be a good Jew and support the BDS movement, and so on.
All nice and dandy in theory, but blatantly false in reality. For example, what percentage of Moses Law are Jews following, so you could say “Jewish life is centered on obeying the commandments”? They do none of the offerings, they don’t stone anyone, so in what sense are they following the commandments?
Since they are not actually following the commandments, they necessarily have an interpretative theology that permits them to ignore most of the letter of the scriptures. And the core of this theology is, succinctly, creed. It may not be expressed and formulated the same way as in Christianity, but why would it, when it’s a different religion?
So, orthopraxis is an obviously wrong word to describe mainstream Judaism. It describes Islam much better.
But Islam is fragmented and becoming more fragmented. What, exactly, does it mean to practice Islam?
In spirituality, there’s such a thing as esotericism, which is distinct from institutional religion and radically opposed to literalism. Your line of argument misses this completely.
Orthopraxis means do as told. If there’s a scripture, and the scripture contains rules of conduct, laws and rituals, then orthopraxis means following the scripture, literally. You do the math, how well Muslims follow Quran and Jews the Torah.
What part of spirituality is revealed by untrue histories? I didn’t miss spirituality. I consider it irrelevant. One can have any kind of private understandings or insights or whatever, but a problem occurs when one tries to communicate them.
As you wish.
Erik,
I concur that Rabbinic Judaism is grounded in a sophisticated hermeneutics of Torah, and that process began with the writing of the Babylonian Talmud, the Sayings of the Fathers, and other texts. But I think one would be hard-pressed to find the creedal statements that have guided that hermeneutic process.
The only doctrine of faith in Judaism, as I understand it, the Shema (“hear, o Israel, Adonai (the Lord) is your God, Adonai is one”). Perhaps I’m mistaken, but such at any rate is my impression.
I’m not persuaded by the thought that Judaism must have creeds because it is a religion; that seems to beg the question, because it assumes that creeds must be central to any religion, and that’s precisely what I’m contesting. I think that Christianity is quite distinct in being creedal. At any rate, could we at least agree that creeds play a much more significant role in Christianity than in other religions?
Sure, if you interpret what I said literally. It wasn’t meant to be taken literally.
Mung,
You misspelled “seriously” twice there.
http://www.questionsaboutislam.com/faith-beliefs-practices/main-practices-rituals-of-islam.php
Yes. That too.
Except that I didn’t say that Judaism must have creeds because it is a religion. I maintain that it must have creeds because they have an interpretative theology that permits them to ignore most of the letter of the scriptures or, as you put it, it “is grounded in a sophisticated hermeneutics of Torah”.
You probably interpret the term “creed” narrowly, as a public recital of articles of faith in front of the congregation. I interpret it as articles of faith that every member of the religion is supposed to learn as they attend their equivalent of Sunday schools. Since it’s well known that Jews have such an education program where the “sophisticated hermeneutics” are conveyed so that kids learn to bypass the letter of Torah, it’s undeniable that articles of faith or core tenets of belief exist. That’s the kind of creed I was talking about.
What’s the “greatest commandment” in Judaism? It’s “Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God, The Lord is One.” Anything about practice here? The word “commandment” isn’t even properly applicable here. It’s an article of faith or tenet of belief. To me, your orthopraxis claims seem to rest purely on unjustified extrapolation from the choice of word “commandment” in Judaism, even though it’s used exactly like “article of faith” in Christianity.
And you don’t have to be persuaded. This is not my intention. You are a Jew, I’m not, so you are supposed to know better, but I’m not persuaded by your claims of orthopraxis. This is all I’m saying.
Thanks for your contributions to this conversation, Erik.
As it seems, KN is a disenchanted, misoriented, confused atheist. He has actively turned his back on the reformed Judaism of his childhood. This raises the question of whether or not he counts as a ‘Jew’ at all, since the meaning of the term is unequivocally religious. ‘Atheist Jews’ (or ‘secular Jews’, though this is now less clear and precise in light of new works on secularism) are therefore a poignant example of contradiction in terms. One cannot be ‘God’s chosen people’ if (one believes) there is no God!
As with you, I’m not at all persuaded by KN’s self-serving philosophistic claims. But one thing seems clear; that he is (i.e. actively lives, believes in) neither ‘orthodox(y)’ nor ‘orthoprax(is).’ He sure is steeped wide and proud in myopic atheist analytic USAmerican philosophy though!!
Nicely put. Just wondering, assume a scenario where vegans became politically organised and managed to convince a slim majority of voters that meat-eating should be outlawed. Should dietary secularism hold sway?
Gregory,
The trouble for you, Gregory, is that religious authority needs to be replaced by religious persuasion, if some traditional religions are going to maintain their hold.
From a disinterested view, the persuasive element needs work.
I maintain Jewishness also has its ethnical aspect in addition to religion. Their scriptures are surely big on genealogies, so I suspect they are like Mormons: You as an individual may think you have abandoned the religion, but they never think so. They regard you as a prodigal son. You are in the bloodline, so they wait patiently until blood invites you back home. Something like that.
Yes, it’s been crystal clear. He may disagree with this evaluation, but he should know he’s not fooling anybody.
So you’re saying there’s no such thing as a food Jew? 🙂
But that seems to be a wholly a priori argument. There’s no evidence here as to what goes on in Jewish education programs. Suppose you visited a Hebrew school and didn’t observe any articles of faith being conveyed. Would you insist that they must exist, even though you don’t see them being taught? Or would you say that the education program is not authentically Jewish because there are no articles of faith?
In any event, what I was really getting at is that the mitzvot are what one does, not what one asserts to be the case. (Which is not to deny that asserting is also a kind of doing.)
With regard to Rabbinic Judaism, the problem is one of how to keep the commandments in exile and without a Temple or a priesthood. That’s where the hermeneutics involved in Talmud and other interpretations comes into play as to which mitzvot must be observed, and how they can be observed, and which ones are suspended until the Messiah comes.
With modern Jewish denominations (Reform, Reconstruction, and Conservative), the differences lie in degrees of traditionalism, attitude taken towards tradition, and how assimilated (and at what costs) into secularism. Many Reform Jews do not keep kosher; Reconstructionist and Conservative Jews do. In general, it’s probably fair to say that Reform Judaism is Protestantized Judaism — Reform Jews are quite similar to liberal Protestants in their attitudes towards religion.
(This is not surprising, given that Reform Judaism was developed by 19th-century German Jews who wanted to assimilate into German society at that time. By contrast, contemporary Orthodoxy has its roots in an Eastern European Jewish rejection of modernity.)
I have no idea why you would think that I’m even trying to fool anyone. I’ve been perfectly transparent about who I am, what I believe, and why I believe it.
However, whether you or anyone else here takes the time to read carefully what I write and actually understands it is not my responsibility. There are some people here who are constitutionally incapable of understanding me; I’ve learned to ignore them.
I grew up on speculative fiction and have always thought of the future in terms of hundreds or thousands of years. I assume, for a number of reasons, that the future of food will be genetically engineered fungus and plants. I eat meat, but if you showed me a good meat substitute — even if more expensive — I’d be a vegetarian in a heartbeat. I already include a lot more vegetarian meals than my parents could have imagined.
That’s a nice list, but it omits anything that might be viewed by outsiders as icky or perverted. It’s marketing.
Although my knowledge of history is sketchy, this is consistent with my understanding. Modernism in religion — all Abrahamic religions — stems from enlightenment thinking and is pretty much secular. Observance of forms and rituals, art and music, are maintained more for aesthetic value than for theological value. A large part of this value is in maintaining community. The downside is it also maintains tribalism.
A footnote that I find amusing: While in college, my daughter shared a rented house with three other girls, one of them an orthodox Jew. The Jewish girl maintained all of her cooking paraphernalia and foodstuffs in a segregated cupboard. She could not cook while anyone else was cooking. She could not turn the stove on during the Sabbath, but could use it if it just happened to be turned on by someone else. On certain days, all foodstuffs had to be wrapped in plastic.
You will excuse me if I say that while ritual has aesthetic appeal, I find it ludicrous outside the venue of stage performance. And sometimes offensive. This young woman attended many dinner parties at my house (parties hosted by my daughter). She never ate anything, even though we provided vegetarian alternatives.
I’m well aware what you are getting at. The problem is that this does not distinguish Judaism in any way. Christians too are supposed to do stuff rather than merely believe (Epistle of James) so, by the characteristic of “orthopraxis”, Judaism doesn’t stand out in any way.
I understand what you write just fine. It’s just that my comparative studies on the Abrahamic religions have yielded different conclusions.
Paul vs James, Peter, and Jesus.
Paul won.
ETA: Fundamentalism is faith over works. It seems to infect all the Abrahamic religions. Militant Islam is just the most noticeable head sticking up at the moment.
But it’s always been Wack-A-Mole.
Erik,
Here are some questions for you:
1. If it was a local flood, why did Noah need an ark? Why didn’t he and his family simply leave the area?
2. If it was a local flood, why did all of those animals need to be carried on the ark? The animals from the surrounding unflooded areas could have repopulated the flooded area. Only the unique local species would have needed to be carried.
3. If it was a local flood, why did God say he wanted to wipe out “all mankind” and “all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it”? A local flood can’t do that.
4. If everything were thoroughly rotten, why would God kill just some humans and some animals, as a local flood would? It makes no sense.
5. Please explain to us how it is possible for a flood to cover the top of Mt. Ararat (16,854 ft) and still be a local flood.
6. God promised never to bring such a flood again. Yet there have been thousands of local floods since then. Do you think God has been breaking his promise over and over?
The Bible describes a global flood, and the Bible got it wrong. Why is that so hard for you to accept? Humans make up fantastic stories. You don’t really think the Bible is the infallible word of God, do you?
keiths. The Grand Inquisitor
Well, well. keiths finally admits he’s engaged in interpreting the texts. Can we expect a followup post explaining why his interpretation is the desired interpretation?
keiths: He’s talking about all humans and all animals. This ain’t no local flood.
The keiths interpretation.
keiths: He’s talking about everybody — all people — in case you didn’t get the message the first time.
The keiths interpretation.
keiths: You wouldn’t need an ark for a local flood. You could just travel out of the area before the flood hit. This was clearly a global flood.
The keiths interpretation.
keiths: On the other hand, if the flood were global — and in the author’s mind, it obviously was — then you would need two of each creature.
The keiths interpretation.
keiths: Every kind. Not just the local ones.
The keiths interpretation.
keiths: Is it sinking in?
Yes, it’s obvious you are bringing your own interpretation to the text. How do you justify your interpretation?
Mung:
Mung: Wants to abolish skepticism at The Skeptical Zone.
contra keiths:
11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight and was full of violence.
How on earth was the earth literally corrupt and literally full of violence?
contra keiths:
13 So God said to Noah, “I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth.
Yet all people were not literally destroyed and the earth was not literally destroyed.
Mung,
You can fight it out with Erik. He’s the one who said that the literal interpretation is true.
Meanwhile, let’s compare interpretations.
Here’s a passage:
I interpret that to mean that the mountains were underwater. How do you interpret it?
contra keiths:
17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.
Except all life was not literally destroyed.
In case you missed it, I’m challenging the claims you made. If you can’t defend them it’s no less than I expect from you.
Here’s what Erik wrote:
What is it that you think Erik and I ought to fight over, and why?
Now that you’re able to admit that you are engaged in interpretation, let’s meet back in the Munging Hell thread.
Mung,
Is this going to be yet another thread in which you are afraid to answer my questions?
I repeat:
It’s a straightforward question. How do you answer it?
keiths, I created a specific thread for your questions:
The Grand Inquisitor
Now that you’ve admitted to being engaged in interpretation, it’s time to take up your claims in other threads.
Let’s revisit your claims made in this thread:
Munging Hell
keiths:
What a load of self-serving BS.
Now that you’ve admitted to being engaged in interpretation, it’s time to take up your claims in other threads.
Let’s revisit your claims made in this thread:
Munging Hell
Going back to the original issues brought up by this OP, I remembered a little parable about it from 1959 in Hall’s Our Knowledge of Fact and Value.
The point of this is that we should take the assertoric or intentional aspect of language seriously whether the context is perceptual, valuational, or religious. Strip the referential aspects away and you really don’t have a language at all.
walto,
I can fully agree that prescriptive discourse is just as fully assertoric as descriptive discourse. (And what kind of Sellarsian would I be if I denied that?)
And I do think that assertoric discourse is ‘weakly inferential’, in that both inference and reference are required for assertoric semantic content.
However, it is a further question whether religious vocabulary should be understood assertorically, even by people of faith themselves. The point I’ve been raising here is that the need for a fully secular public morality, given the dual constraints of pluralism of comprehensive doctrines and democratic legitimacy, in turn strongly suggests the need for a ‘wall of separation’ between morality and religion. And one way of doing that is to distinguish between assertoric discourse (both descriptive and prescriptive) and disclosive discourse (whether ‘sacred’ or ‘profane’).
I’d be reluctant to endorse a theory of semantics on which metaphors and symbols weren’t meaningful.
So, religious language should not be assertoric, because it’s bad for democracy. What if it’s a democratic religion, some Christian socialists or animist collectivists?
Did I say it was a local flood? I said that literal interpretation was the least important.
Anyway, to answer your question: Noah saw no flood yet. God told Noah there was going to be a flood, along with instructions what to do about it. In Noah’s place, would you just hope it would be a local flood and you’d be safe?
Questioning instructions when you have not seen the flood yet. Not wise.
Garden of Eden was local, kinda, wasn’t it? Maybe “all mankind” of the time was not too global either.
Should I answer also questions that make no sense?
Where did I say it was a local flood? A flood sweeping over a single continent or even half a continent can also be called global. The 2004 tsunami in Indian ocean only affected the coasts of Indian ocean from India to Indonesia, but it was not local. It was global.
If we are to interpret literally, mankind was wiped out in Noah’s flood. No such flood has occurred later.
The Bible got it wrong how?
Abrahamic religions seem to be largely comprised of prescriptions and proscriptions. Even the faith first crowd seems to require an action (believe).
Only if you don’;t give a damn about what words mean.
ETA: Question: Prior to the work of early geologists, would bible believers have minces words about global vs local. Prior to Hutton et all, did anyone doubt that the Flood was global?
I care about words, which is why I don’t impute either “local” or “global” on the flood in the Bible. I doubt the writer of that story had much clue about the distinction, so that’s why the story is not about “local” or “global”. It’s about the flood.
The writer was very clear about the language. You are obfuscating and weaseling.
The question of whether religious talk by religious people is assertoric cannot actually be answered by considering whether it would be a good thing for societies or politics if it were so construed.
That’s philosophy by wishful thinking. It’s a cushy pragmatism indeed that determines the truth value of something based on whether it would make us more comfortable.
My point wasn’t that a religion should be democratically organized. The core line of thought I’m pursuing here is this:
(1) public morality is conducted in a language of rational prescriptions, or norms that are binding on all;
(2) in an ideal democracy, the norms binding on all should be norms that all can consent to;
(3) norms that are only intelligible within some specific metaphysical position cannot be consented to by those who do not share that position;
(4) therefore, such norms would be excluded from consideration of public policy in an ideal democracy;
(5) therefore, public morality has nothing to do with religion (or with any non-religious metaphysics);
This line of thought can happily accommodate the idea that religion can be important, even crucial, for “personal morality” — what Foucault called “the care of the self”.
The further question is how to distinguish between public morality (which I think ought to be secular, in a pluralistic democracy) and personal morality (which obviously can be religious, or not). I was pursuing the thought that drawing a distinction between assertoric and disclosive language might fit that bill, but I am actually not entirely sure that this distinction is wholly workable or if it can carry out the task I’ve assigned to it.
I think you’ve missed my point by a rather wide margin, but since usually understand each other quite well, I suspect that the error lies on my part.
I was not offering a suggestion as to how we should interpret the actual utterances of people of faith — although I have my suspicions that rather fewer utterances will count as assertions if the principle of charity is applied.
Rather, I’m experimenting with the idea that people of faith ought to change how they (or we) articulate that faith so that the articulation of faith is consistent with the requirements of peaceful cooperation in a secular and pluralistic democracy.
I am not proposing the assertoric/disclosive distinction as a basis for interpretation of religious utterances (though I have some doubts that all religious articulation is as assertoric as is assumed here), but as a basis for rendering religious articulation consistent with secular, pluralistic democracy — whereas in actuality it very often is not.