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.
No, that would not be correct. What a silly strawman. The correct response would be to ask “Which elements of this story might be historically accurate, and which elements can we rule out?” and “What do we know about historic events that might have inspired this story?”
You’re right – it should – that would be very helpful. However, based on all the raging debate between Abrahamists, one could replace “should”, with “fails to unambiguously”.
But I am glad to see you state clearly that historicity is not strictly required of scripture. I suspect that the text is indicating to you that the Flood story does require strict historicity. You’re entitled to your opinion.
Cute! You found a new way to say “one should not dismiss it lightly”.
When you write stuff like this repeatedly, you create the implication that your audience is doing precisely what you are advising against. It comes across as an insult, but a sneakily disavowable insult. Don’t worry, I am confident that I have not denied anything “flimsily”, nor dismissed it “lightly” : you can relax on that front.
Agreed
Say what? Here you have it precisely wrong.
Consider two readers of the Iliad, prior to the discovery of Trojan ruins.
One has a commitment to the Greek pantheon: “Of course it’s historically accurate! And, furthermore, we have botanical evidence confirming that Athena fought Poseidon on the Akropolis”.
The other does not: “It’s a beautiful tale of jealousy, loyalty and betrayal.”
You are claiming that the second reader has a reason to deny the historical accuracy of the Iliad. Utter rubbish! The first reader, on the other hand, does have a reason to cling to his “it’s historical” position even in the face of damning evidence.
You may or may not be aware of this.
Doesn’t there have to be a basis for ruling out/in? What is that basis?
Hint: Your proposed “correct response” does not provide the means to approach any and all texts, so it is not correct. First and foremost, when you have ascertained that you have a message in your hands (i.e. a text, not some random scratches), the actual question is “What does it say?” – both in the sense “What’s in it for me?” and “What is it intended to convey?” For most people, the first question is more important, for specialists the latter. Historicity versus non-historicity becomes relevant after a few more steps in the process, while these first questions remain relevant throughout. They are the formulation of the problem that philology, hermeneutics, and exegesis set out to solve.
Erik,
Asking questions of others while evading answering them yourself is hypocritical.
The goal of this site, in Lizzie’s own words, is
You are not participating in good faith and are not attempting to achieve this goal.
You made a claim about a supposedly historical event. Your transparent attempts to distract from this objective fact are increasingly pathetic. Your only honest options given the rules of this site are to answer the questions posed about your claim (and then provide support for it once it is understood by other participants) or retract it. Refusing to do either demonstrates cowardice and a gross lack of integrity.
If you’re not willing to abide by the very simple rules and goals of this site, you should consider a different forum. If you prefer one where baseless claims and intellectual dishonesty are not only tolerated but lauded I strongly recommend Uncommon Descent.
You made a positive claim. It is your responsibilty to explain and defend it. If you can’t or won’t, you must retract it.
This mendacious nonsense has gone on long enough. Answer the simple questions I posed or retract your claim.
Erik,
Hint: Your cowering away from the simple questions I’ve posed is reprehensible behavior.
Due to the vagaries of the English language, your question is ambiguous: It could be parsed as :
Doesn’t there have to be a {basis for ruling out/in}? meaning “In all cases there must be a basis for ruling, amirite?”
alternatively, it could be parsed as “Doesn’t there {have to be a basis} for ruling out/in?” meaning, “Well, if you’re going to rule, you would need a basis, amirite?”
My reply : No and yes respectively. That is “IFF there is a basis, then you can rule.”
The basis would be ALL pertinent evidence, weighted per Bayes. But the answer may be the same as the Zhou Enlai ‘s answer when asked about the significance of the French Revolution:
.
.
.
.
.
“It is too early to say”
Likewise, our second reader of the Iliad would say “Don’t know. Don’t care.”
If our concern is with historical accuracy, then surely the basis for ruling in/out should come from the methods of history (as in historical analysis).
Oh Erik, now you’re just blithering. Your question was specifically:
Do try to keep up.
Yikes. You’re sounding more and more like some Canadian ex-pat.
And the basis for judging evidence as pertinent is….?
Correct. But insofar as the text’s concern is other than historical accuracy, your concern for the same is misplaced to that degree, is it not?
(This is not saying that the text must be lying, when it is not primarily concerned with historical accuracy. It is saying that your historical expectations make you interpret it for the purposes of your analysis. But the material not suitable for such analysis is rightly outside of it, not wrong as per the analysis.)
This comment was quite illuminating in this thread and speaks to the inability of some people, who are admittedly themselves ‘not religious,’ to simply ‘not understand’ varieties of religious language. For them, it religious language *cannot* be true unless it conforms to their non-religious perspectives of reality, including history, relationships, how to read genres of literature and scripture, etc. Of course, no schooling or learning is needed for Patrick (radical atheist arrogance & condescension in USA), who doesn’t realise he is asking the wrong questions for the topic.
Erik,
Asking questions while evading answering questions asked of you is hypocritical.
The issue is that you are explicitly claiming that the text describes an historical event:
Please clarify exactly what you mean by this. In particular:
1) When did the flood you claim happened occur?
2) Was the flood global? That is, did it cover all the planet simultaneously as described in the Bible?
3) Immediately after the flood were there only eight people alive on the entire planet?
Either clarify your claim about this supposedly historical event or retract it. Any other response demonstrates that you are not participating here in good faith.
Gregory,
The topic is Erik’s repeated claim about a supposedly historical event:
My questions are absolutely pertinent:
1) When did the flood you claim happened occur?
2) Was the flood global? That is, did it cover all the planet simultaneously as described in the Bible?
3) Immediately after the flood were there only eight people alive on the entire planet?
You should reconsider your support of Erik’s cowardice and lack of integrity.
I was responding to your earlier comment which did appear to be about historical accuracy.
So, no, I don’t think I have shown any misplaced concern. Rather, I think you have been quite ambiguous on the issue.
Bayes
You seem a little slow on the uptake.
The issue is so ambiguous to you that you didn’t understand what the comment was about. It was about a basis for validity of judging a text based on historical accuracy. Some texts, say history textbooks, are validly judged on this basis. Other texts are not. How do you determine this basis?
To me the basis is the genre. Which raises the next question: How do we determine the genre? But this question is totally different from asking: How well does the text match historical events/empirical data? These are quite different fields of study. The genre determines what kind of historical events or empirical data to look for – if at all. Sometimes the genre determines that you should not expect any matching empirical data. But to be able to tell which is the case, the genre itself must be determined first.
At any rate, as the track record of Bible archeology stands, the burden of proof is on disbelievers. And in philology, you can validly disbelieve only if the genre clearly spells out “hoax”. Other views are expressions of lack of certainty.
Erik,
Actually, we’re not at the point where burden of proof or evidence can be discussed because you have been gutlessly evading answering simple questions about your claim. You made a clear claim about a supposedly historical event:
1) When did the flood you claim happened occur?
2) Was the flood global? That is, did it cover all the planet simultaneously as described in the Bible?
3) Immediately after the flood were there only eight people alive on the entire planet?
Please answer these questions directly and clearly.
Here’s how I understand Erik’s position.
(1) Principle of hermeneutics: depending on genre, a text can have different levels of meaning.
(2) A sacred text has several different levels of meaning, including both literal meaning and spiritual meaning.
(3) For a genuinely spiritual person, every level of a text is true.
(4) Thus, the Bible is literally true as well as revealing other truths.
(5) Therefore, we have compelling hermeneutic reasons for holding that the Bible is literally true
(6) But there is no non-textual evidence that directly and explicitly contradicts the literal meaning of anything in the Biblical narrative;
(7) Hence, there are no compelling non-hermeneutic reasons for holding that the Bible is not literally true.
If I’m getting his position right, then Erik’s claim about the Flood having occurred is actually not a claim about anything that happened in the past geology of this planet. It’s a claim driven entirely by his Biblical hermeneutics.
Since the Bible itself doesn’t tell us exactly when the Flood happened, or whether or not it actually covered the entire planet (though the writers of the narrative might have believed that it did), there’s no textual basis for answering Patrick’s questions. Erik’s position is based entirely on Biblical hermeneutics.
In other words, the historical reliability of the Bible is not, for Erik, something to be confirmed by any historical science; it is an direct entailment of his hermeneutic strategy. That’s why geology archaeology, paleontology etc. are entirely irrelevant to him. As, indeed, he has been saying.
Apparently there was some miscommunication. It now seems that you were intending to ask “What is the basis for deciding that historical accuracy is the relevant standard?” Your actual wording seemed to be asking something different.
Kantian Naturalist,
I disagree. Here’s what he wrote:
Then he doubled down:
If Erik means what you interpret him as meaning, he could easily clarify his claim by directly answering my questions. When did the flood you claim happened occur? “Never.” Was the flood global? That is, did it cover all the planet simultaneously as described in the Bible? “No.” Immediately after the flood were there only eight people alive on the entire planet? “No, because it didn’t really happen.”
He has chosen instead to demonstrate his lack of good faith and refusal to align with the goals of this site by evading the questions.
I must say that I’m surprised and disappointed by your support for Erik’s cowardice and lack of integrity. He made a claim about a supposedly historical event. By the standards of this site, and rational discourse, he should either answer clarifying questions or retract the claim. Do you consider his appalling dishonesty acceptable?
KN’s apologetics are legion. He turns the other cheek….360 degrees!
Well I pointed out the ambiguity to him in my “vagaries” comment, and he failed to clarify.
No, he has not. At issue is item (6). He has repeatedly make vague allusions to these disciplines as providing support for his position, but declined to clarify just how these disciplines support his position, or even what his position is.
I’m sensing something of a pattern here…
I was only trying to clarify Erik’s position, insofar as I understand it at all. I certainly don’t share it or endorse it. I do think that any claim about a supposedly historical event should be justified by the relevant empirical study of history, and I regard philology or hermeneutics as wholly irrelevant to the justification of historical claims.
I also do not agree with his hermeneutic principle that a spiritual person must regard every level of meaning of a sacred text as true. As I said above, I regard this principle as part of Erik’s Neoplatonic emanationism — as if the levels of meaning of a text correspond to the degrees of emanation from the highest level of reality (the spiritual) to the lowest level of reality (the material).
There are sacred texts which do teach an emanationist ontology, and we do need to understand that ontology to understand those texts. And there are other sacred texts that teach a ‘flat’ or ‘immanent’ but nevertheless (I would say) spiritual vision. That’s how I would interpret, say, the Tao De Jing or much Native American religious discourse.
And while of course Scripture can be interpreted through that lens, it is not necessary. I would certainly not endorse interpreting the Hebrew Bible through the lens of a philosophical doctrine — Neoplatonism — developed hundreds of years, and in a quite different culture, after the Hebrew Bible was compiled. Imposing a Neoplatonic interpretation on the Hebrew Bible seems like the opposite of good philology.
So Erik is wrong about actual history and science, plus he’s also wrong about his chosen discipline of philology.
Fractal wrongness.
What a surprise.
hotshoe_,
It’s no big sin to be wrong. But the constant weaseling is hard to stomach.
One of the main problems with KN’s approach, of course, is that not only would he not interpret the Hebrew Bible with a spiritual lens, he also does/would not interpret it as an authentic religious Jew. So, we have a significant gap between Erik and KN on what counts as ‘spiritual’ and the philosophistic slipperiness of KN is only too evident, apparently other than to his fellow atheists. The KN of today is not the KN who once became ‘bar mitzvah’ in a spiritual sense of the sacred Jewish tradition.
Thus, when KN speaks of ‘sacred texts’, he doesn’t actually mean ‘sacred’ in the tradition of his distant religious Jewish ancestors. Instead, he means it only in some (what did you call your most recent family again, KN) left-wing, socialist, environmentalist, quasi-Reform variety of non- or simply anti-theists, i.e. in a ‘secular Jewish’ way? Thus the ‘variety of religious language’ that KN speaks comes across as among the flattest, most horizontal, soul-sucking kinds there is, which his ancient ancestors would roll in their graves if they were to hear it. (Luckily, or tragically, as an atheist, he doesn’t think they can hear anything!)
I should clarify: I was only expressing my own view of the matter. Biblical hermeneutics is not my specialty.
To put my position more carefully: I am quite aware that there are interpretative traditions which hold that every level of a text must be true in some sense. (This is, for example, the teaching of Orthodox Judaism.) But to insist that this hermeneutic principle is maintained by all genuinely spiritual persons is, in effect, to deny that (for example) non-Orthodox Jews can be genuinely spiritual. That denial in turn actually fuels the conflict between conservative theism and secular humanism because there is less space for liberal theism.
Gregory,
You actually know nothing about me. All you’ve got is some wild fantasy you’ve constructed in your head. Every claim you make about who you imagine me to be makes you come across as a creepy stalker. Cut it out.
That might also explain why young Americans seem to be deserting the evangelical churches in large numbers. The insistence on outdated dogma and literalism, the refusal to deal with advancing knowledge showing Bible stories are just that.
Gregory,
The comment is guano-worthy. We know from your writing elsewhere that you are capable of writing text that is not inflammatory. Please make an effort to comment within the rules.
Good on you for saying that, KN.
Now look folks, let’s try to be rational. If person Q says (better ‘volunteers’) that they grew up as a Reform Jew, but are now an atheist Jew, is that supposed to be inadmissible ‘evidence’ in a blog conversation, out of convenience for atheists? There’s nothing ‘stalking’ or ‘creepy’ about repeating things a person has volunteered about themselves, especially when they are directly relevant to the thread in question.
There is absolutely nothing accusatory in what I wrote to KN. Nothing. I simply repeated what he has said here about himself and placed it in the context of this thread, which is about ‘varieties of religious language.’ If you folks think remarking openly about someone’s atheism (which I consider part of his philosophistic worldview) is not entirely relevant and on-point on this topic, you are simply shallow and ignorant.
For KN to say “You actually know nothing about me” is ridiculous, since he has said these things about himself. Is he now suggesting he was lying? I simply took him at his word, i.e. ‘in good faith’ (even though he is an atheist without ‘faith’).
What you folks won’t do, atheists all of you, is face the CONTENT of the discussion. Yes, it does make a difference if you avoid the historical and religious meaning(s) of ‘spiritual’ and just spin it into some philosophy of mind flat, horizontal emptiness of soul. That’s important in this conversation, even if KN shies away from it because of his secularist/atheist ideology.
Your definition of “spiritual” permits a person to be contradictory and self-contradictory. Mine does not.
Non-Orthodox Jews (or non-Jews) can be genuinely spiritual if they have thorough spiritual commitment. That commitment need not be to scripture. After all, there are illiterate saints. Scripture is not a necessary part of spirituality. Personal relationship with God is. But for those who acknowledge scripture (and acknowledgement of scripture can be only spiritual; for non-spiritual people scripture doesn’t properly exist, it’s folklore or historical religious musings), the spritual commitment requires complete dedication on every level. Otherwise it’s not spiritual commitment.
“(6) But there is no non-textual evidence that directly and explicitly contradicts the literal meaning of anything in the Biblical narrative;”
What evidence contradicts the literal meaning of the Bible? (And is it correct to read the Bible literally on that point?)
That’s rather obvious.
Can atheist Jews, let alone ‘non-Orthodox Jews’ be “genuinely spiritual”? If so, then why not give some content to what ‘spiritual’ means, other than simply ‘consciousness’? Or is this just pantheistic confusion being promoted now as if you are somehow ‘theistic’ after leaving the religious Judaism of your childhood, as you have said here before?
Erik said it early in this thread: KN *should* know better. But sadly, he seems (to want) not to.
Gregory,
It’s not relevant, it’s personal information divulged in a different context that you insist on brining up where it is not pertinent. The rule here is to address the post, not the poster. Respond to the argument being made, not the person making it.
Erik,
That depends on what you consider the literal meaning. For example, what exactly did you mean when you made this claim:
1) When did the flood you claim happened occur?
2) Was the flood global? That is, did it cover all the planet simultaneously as described in the Bible?
3) Immediately after the flood were there only eight people alive on the entire planet?
It’s about time you started participating here in good faith. Answer the questions.
It’s entirely relevant. Here’s an atheist pretending to understand & experience ‘varieties of religious language.’ But that’s a joke, of course. In KN’s case, unless he shows otherwise, it’s posturing academic nonsense, nothing more. John 18: 34-38
This thread, involves both post & poster. It is not and cannot be ‘purely’ objective. Stop being so dehumanising! (Indeed, “a wretched hive of scum and villainy,” hiding behind rules that it betrays at whim.)
If an atheist tries to foist reality on-line (which happens all too often on this blog), then they should be called out on it fairly as it results either directly or indirectly from their worldview. If you don’t like this, Patrick, then leave TAMSZ. Stop waving your finger at reality as if you are some kind of dehumanised empowered robot ‘divorced’ of ideology, emotion, feeling, and fallibility. You act like a silly atheist snob. As such, since ‘atheists are people too’, you should be answerable as a person, not as a mere figment of ‘internet imagination.’
Gregory,
No, it does not. You are the only participant bringing in personal information about other people. If you can’t address the ideas being discussed without ad hominem, that’s your failing.
Stop acting like a creepy stalker.
It’s a miracle!! According to atheist Patrick (that’s not too personal is it, cuz you’ve told us you’re an atheist already?), this thread *does not* involve posters! 😉 Nobody here, just embodied atoms with soulless ‘consciousness’ having a conversation against their will 😛
It’s the argument that ‘because he is an atheist, he simply doesn’t get it’ that confounds Patrick (and quite a few others here). So he disallows it in principle (repeats himself ad nauseam ‘as if he’s trapped a theist’!) & flaunts his biased moderation with “Lizzie’s rules dictate” that human beings are not actually intentionally and voluntarily even posting messages at TAMSZ. 🙂 Is that the profound logic of atheism 101?
Yes, it is creepy. What makes it creepy, is that you bring it up where it is not appropriate.
It is also ad hominem. You are arguing against the person, instead of arguing the substance of what is being discussed.
There’s nothing about atheist that has such an implication.
That’s pretty much textbook ad hominem.
It’s absolutely appropriate to indicate that a person making a claim about ‘varieties of religious language’ is an atheist or a theist. What a ridiculous suggestion otherwise! Do you wish to simply bend over and stick your head in the sand instead?!
This is not a natural science topic, folks. You are acting like objectivists on a topic where that is not possible. For many of you, scientistic ideology has become infected in your dehumanising worldview.
Arguing or better, fruitfully discussing *with a PERSON* is unavoidable when the topic is ‘interpretation’ of scripture, which in this case, the atheists here don’t even acknowledge is possible (because they deny the sacredness of the texts). First it was Patrick, now it is Neil, and more will likely follow. These human beings simply don’t understand how dehumanising their logic is of trying to ‘naturalise’ a conversation about scripture according to ‘scientific’ methods or ‘historical’ proofs.
Just like trying to be a ‘scientific’ moderator/admin is absurd (displayed by the hypocrisy shown so often at TAMSZ), so is aggressively disqualifying personalities, including their (anti-)religious confessions on this site, from this thread.
I am arguing the substance of what is being discussed, which inevitably and undeniably *ON THIS TOPIC* includes the person doing the discussing. If you aren’t enough of a person with coherent views of what you believe, then don’t participate. No one is forcing you to tell the internet how confused or untrained you are about ‘varieties of religious language.’
Gregory,
It’s not relevant to the idea being discussed, so your behavior is still creepy.
So you’re either being deliberately obtuse or you’re incapable of perceiving the difference between commenting about posters’ personal information and commenting on the ideas being communicated by the poster. That explains a lot more of your behavior — I’d probably be bitter and angry too if I spent my life learning sociology only to find it didn’t prepare me to argue rationally.
Gregory,
Your attempt at proof by repeated assertion is not compelling.
If you can’t address an idea without referring to the person who holds the idea, you are the one with the problem.
Erik, that just means your definition is wrong according to about 7 billion people on this planet, including almost all theists, and including most christians specifically.
So, since we know you’re using the wrong definition of “spiritual” why would we be interested in your ridiculous opinions on anything that follows?
Oh well, too bad for you.
Please take your own advice.
To answer this another way:
Here you imply that Orthodox Jews deny spirituality to non-Orthodox Jews. This is false. Sprituality means spiritual commitment, devotion or dedication to the personal relationship with God. If you permit half-hearted commitment, then you (you, KN) deny spirituality.
If there is spiritual commitment to scripture, then it’s whole-hearted commitment, not partial. It doesn’t really matter here if one is Orthodox or non-Orthodox. Everybody can attain to spirituality, but few acieve it, because it’s difficult.
You tend to treat spirituality as a positive label that everybody should be able to use to adorn oneself. But I prefer that the word has an actual meaning, actual content.
Erik,
Similarly, you treat this site as though it is a place where you can make claims without clarifying them. I prefer to follow Lizzie’s goals:
In order to achieve those goals with respect to this claim of yours about a supposedly historical event:
I have asked a few simple questions:
1) When did the flood you claim happened occur?
2) Was the flood global? That is, did it cover all the planet simultaneously as described in the Bible?
3) Immediately after the flood were there only eight people alive on the entire planet?
Please answer these questions directly and clearly or retract your claim. Until you do one or the other, the only reasonable conclusion based on your behavior is that you are not participating here in good faith.
TSZ, where OCD reigns.
Erik,
In your view, does “whole-hearted” spiritual commitment require taking a sacred text as literally true, as well as true in other senses (whatever those other senses are)?
It’s reflexively relevant to the idea being discussed. Atheists have a personal stake in denying that scripture is actually scripture. Theists (at least, those of the Book) accept that scripture is actually scripture. To deny the reflexive worldview inclusion of the ‘person’ speaking is to ruin the conversation.
KN is not spiritually committed. Thus, he’s likely going to equivocate over terms, spinning to keep his confused apostate ideologies afloat in some kind of personal balancing act of atheist folly. While Erik, otoh, speaks quite clearly: “Spirituality means spiritual commitment, devotion or dedication to the personal relationship with God.” And the atheists here, the majority at TAMSZ, will pile on Erik, not on philosophistic muse KN.
Apparently, Patrick belongs in a playpen when mature conversations for adults are involved.