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.
Gregory,
Not necessarily, and whether they do or not is immaterial to the arguments individual atheists may make. This is a classic ad hominem.
Interesting double standard you show there. Atheists have a personal stake but theists are merely accepting that “scripture is actually scripture.” No way those nice theists would have a personal stake in that claim.
Another classic ad hominem. If you think KN is making a flawed argument, point out the flaws in the actual argument. Don’t cast aspersions on him personally.
Apparently training in sociology doesn’t prepare one very well for rational discussion.
Patrick, I’m not going to ‘beseech you,’ but “think it possible that you may be mistaken.” If you don’t understand, which has been demonstrated amply in this thread, maybe you should just ‘quit while you’re ahead’?
Too many undereducated people claim ‘ad hom’ when there is no ad hom. If you don’t think that a person’s worldview is relevant when making claims about religious scripture, then you are simply foolish. Period. You do not understand ‘reflexive’ discourse, which in this case is important.
KN’s philosophistic arguments are predictable, given his atheism. He doesn’t even know what he doesn’t know when it comes to ‘spiritual commitment’ and he has no answer for why he doesn’t know. Neither you nor any other atheist here has any evidence or experience otherwise. Why? Because you are atheists.
The ‘aspersions’ are simply factual in noting that KN is (or at least, has claimed to be here at TAMSZ) an atheist, that he is a secular Jew. This is the main reason he doesn’t understand Erik’s position. If he were a religious Jew, he would most likely understand Erik what has said. It would be enough for KN to acknowledge that and stop his philosophstry in trying to de-spiritualise the spiritual. Will he? Doubtful. 🙁
So you have to agree with something to understand it. Fantastic. We’ve backward-highjumped some great logic there.
Gregory,
If you cannot address an idea or argument without referencing personal information about the person holding that idea or making that argument, then you are demonstrating the ad hominem fallacy.
Erik refuses to clarify his positions, so KN’s personal beliefs have nothing to do with it.
If KN or anyone else demonstrates a lack of understanding, point that out and clarify the situation. If someone makes a poor argument, refute it. Don’t continuously bring up personal information. It’s simply creepy.
Spiritual commitment to scripture requires honouring all levels of reading – if the scripture indicates that it’s to be read literally in that place, then it must be so – because spiritual commitment to anything is unconditional and whole-hearted.
Erik,
Intellectual commitment to honest discussion and the rules of this venue requires answering questions about one’s claims. To that end, when you made this claim:
And this supporting one:
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. Any other response is cowardly, dishonest, and in violation of the goals of this site.
I have answered your questions several times and I have also asked a question in return. When you answer my question, I will make another attempt to consider you intellectually honest and posting in good faith.
Erik,
That is an out and out falsehood. Here are my questions that you have never answered:
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 restate it, along with your explicit, direct answers to my questions.
Erik, to Patrick:
No, you haven’t. You seem quite ashamed of your beliefs.
That’s quite the “If by whiskey…” response you got there, pardner.
I understand that a majority of Christians view the Flood story in the not-to-be-read-literally category. Of course, they may have come to that view using St Augustine’s De Genesi ad literam approach, which presents something of a problem. That’s an argument for another day.
On this thread you have implied that the text of the Flood story indicates to you that it should be read literally. Given that fact, your commitment to the truth of the Flood story and your willingness to defend it seems to be somewhat lacking in the “unconditional and whole-hearted” department.
Awkward.
ETA Ninja’ed by keiths!
One thing I’ve learned about religious language from this thread is that it’s long, tedious, repetitive, and pointless.
But as Ron Weasley might say, you feel good spouting it.
“If-by-whiskey in political discourse is a relativist fallacy in which the speaker’s position is contingent on the listener’s opinion. An if-by-whiskey argument implemented through doublespeak appears to affirm both sides of an issue, and agrees with whichever side the listener supports, in effect taking a position without taking a position.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If-by-whiskey
When you say this in response to the definition of what spiritual commitment is, then what are you really saying? Are you saying that I defined spiritual commitment to manipulate the emotions of the audience (namely, the emotions of you guys)? Or that the definition is not consistent with what I have said earlier?
Looks like you have no clue what you are saying. But if you do, then you can surely elaborate on this.
As if the interpretation of the flood story depended on popular consensus. As if you, and Patrick, and keiths were representing the Christian point of view, and I some other point of view. Now, what other point of view am I representing in your opinion?
Erik,
I’m trying to find that out. When you make a claim about a supposedly historical event, as you have with this:
you have an obligation to first clarify what you mean and then to support it with evidence and logic. To that end, please answer these simple questions so that I can understand your point of view:
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?
Brief, direct answers are all that is required. Alternatively, you could retract your claim. There are no other honest options.
Heavens, no, Erik. I was merely making a jocular allusion to the fact that your “if the scripture indicates that it’s to be read literally in that place, then it must be so” was uninformative to the point of evasion, given your continued refusal to clarify what you mean.
As if, indeed.
Well, if you hadn’t clipped my next sentence, “Of course, they may have come to that view using St Augustine’s De Genesi ad literam approach…”, you might have a better clue as to the basis for that not-literal view. What did you say was your area of expertise again?
Insofar as we are discussing the literal reading of the Flood story, it appears, ironically, that Patrick, keiths and I are representing the prevalent Christian view, whereas you are representing…well I still don’t have any idea what you are representing, since you refuse to say. Rather than have us all guess, perhaps you could clarify?
🙂
Just one post earlier you said the majority Christian view was non-literal reading of the flood story. I personally don’t care about the majority Christian view, because to my knowledge most Christians don’t care either way, literal or non. The bulk of Christians don’t go to church, don’t read the Bible and don’t make any attempt to think through its contents.
(1) The nature of scriptures is multi-layered, meaning multiple possible interpretations at the same time.
(2) There’s no falsity in scripture. All contradictions are apparent, not real.
Statement (1) applies equally to folklore. Statement (2) distinguishes scripture from folklore and the like. And I’d take that 2 Corinthians 3:6 confirms my position that spiritual reading has priority over the literal, when/if the two appear to collide. Augustine has written a book about this verse.
Erik,
Nonetheless, you made a claim not about the spiritual reading but about a supposedly real historical event:
Two of the distinguishing, essential features of the biblical flood story are that it covered the entire planet and that only the people and animals on the ark survived.
I’m trying to understand what you are claiming actually happened. I’m not at this time interested in analyzing the story. It is necessary to understand your claim before it makes sense to consider what evidence you can provide to support it. To be sure I understand your claim, I’ve asked three 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?
Direct answers or a retraction, please. It’s time you started participating here in good faith.
@Patrick
I have answered your questions. To the first I answered that the date cannot be strictly attributed because the text is multi-layered (meaning, it’s not just about the family of a Hebrew man called Noah). There certainly are people who attribute a strict date and you are free to go with that, even though this removes all the other layers of meaning from the text. If you have no problem with this, go with it. I have problems with such approach, but I am not stopping you.
The other two questions are yes-no questions. The questions are meaningless to ask of me because you already presuppose the answer by saying “Two of the distinguishing, essential features of the biblical flood story are that it covered the entire planet and that only the people and animals on the ark survived.” This makes these questions intellectually dishonest, but feel free to assume the answer as you like – you have done it anyway.
If you are interested in dialogue, then take your point to its conclusion. Assume the answers that you have already assumed and show what follows. Show where you are heading with this. Don’t let it hang halfway as you have for so long.
Let me see if I can be of some help here (although I sense you two would enjoy going on with this for at least the next decade).
Erik, please forget about whatever the Bible may or may not say for a moment. I believe that Patrick would like to know YOUR OWN views on these questions:
1. Was there a flood that covered the entire earth at some time, and, if so,
2. When do you think this global event occurred? and
3. Were all but eight human beings killed by this flood?
Again, please note that there is no mention of the Bible here or of any interpretation of it–no matter how cockamamie.
Thank you (and you’re welcome).
Erik,
No, you have not. If you had, you could simply point to the comment where you did so.
As I have emphasized repeatedly, I am not asking about the text. I am asking about your claim:
I want to understand what you mean when you make 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?
No, I have not. I am asking specifically what you mean by your claim. You’ve already behaved evasively about the date of the supposed flood, so I can’t assume that when you say this:
that you actually mean what other people mean by “the biblical flood.” Please answer those simple questions to clarify your claim.
I am assuming nothing, I am simply asking for clarification. Where I am heading depends entirely on your answers. Either answer the questions or retract the claim. Any other response is dishonest and cowardly.
walto,
You have summarized my position very clearly and succinctly. Thank you.
Erik, please (finally) answer those questions about your claim.
walto, please forget the faithless atheism (naturalism, materialism, scientism or whatever you call your worldview) that has overtaken your soul for 30 (or more)+ years for a moment. What would it instead be like for you to humble yourself, to reign in your ego in faith and trust and believe in God and his spiritual message to human beings? This is a ‘language’ you seem completely unable or unwilling to speak.
Asking me or anyone else to ‘prove’ it to you, ’empirically’ or otherwise, is simply the wrong question. patrick simply doesn’t understand this and may die without it. Believing or disbelieving is both up to you and on your responsibility as a human being.
gregory, I have not asked anybody to prove anything to me — empirically or otherwise.
Oh, but you CAN help me, if you really want to. Please help me try to forget what a nitwit you are. You could help with this by not acting like a nitwit for five minutes.
(Hmmm. note to self: maybe he’s NOT acting??)
Well, of course I assume he’s NOT acting.
I assume that what ya see is the real deal.
Not that it’s a good deal, mind ya, but the real deal …
Erik,
“(1) The nature of scriptures is multi-layered, meaning multiple possible interpretations at the same time.”
In other words, religious gibberish can be interpreted in whatever way is convenient for a religious gibberish believer.
“(2) There’s no falsity in scripture. All contradictions are apparent, not real.”
Yeah, and up is down, black is white, life is death, and inside is outside. LOL
And some earlier answers to keiths http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/the-varieties-of-religious-language/comment-page-26/#comment-88415
Some links may be broken, because when comments get guanoed, the page order changes.
You don’t understand when it’s said that the flood literally occurred? I can play the same game: What do you mean when you say you don’t understand? Do you mean you are handicapped or do you mean something less literal?
It’s now clear beyond any doubt that you were just playing the fool all along. I suspected this much, but I was trying my best to give you some benefit of the doubt. Good faith, as they call it.
Here’s again one of my very early responses to you, which has proven correct: I will answer as soon as you have an actual basis for asking the question, i.e. as soon as you show that you have understood what I said and that you are interested in dialogue. But as things stand, this translates to Never.
I know. In other words, he has no interest in scripture, i.e. he is off topic. As soon as he shows how this is related to the topic, something may come of this. Thus far his main pressing point seems to be “I don’t understand.”
@Patrick
I answered with links where you can find many of my earlier answers to you, but this platform hates link salad. You welcome.
Erik,
None of the comments to which you linked answer the questions I’ve asked about your claim:
In case you’ve forgotten, here they are again. You can answer them in the space provided:
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?
The handicapped comment is both crass and a violation of the site rules.
I mean exactly what I said. I do not understand exactly what you are claiming. Note the emphasis on “you.” I am asking you to clarify your claim by providing some specific details.
Nothing I have written suggests I am playing any games. This has gone on as long as it has because you have refused to answer simple questions about your claim regarding a supposedly historical event. You could have demonstrated good faith by answering them the first time they were asked. It’s still not too late for you to stop acting like a dishonest coward.
I have demonstrated myself to be interested in dialog by asking questions to better understand your claim. Your requirement is met. Please directly and clearly answer these questions now:
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?
Erik,
I am responding to a claim that you made in this thread:
That is non-responsive. None of the linked comments contain answers to any of these three 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?
As I’ve pointed out before, Lizzie has some specific goals for this site:
You are not participating in good faith to achieve those goals. Either answer the questions, retract your claim, or find a venue that values your dishonest and cowardly behaviors.
So, you won’t answer him because you think it would be off-topic? Some kind of thread violation? Or is it that you will answer questions about your personal belief only if the person asking has an “interest in scripture”?
I can tell you plainly that, whatever your reasons for evasiveness have been they have not reflected well on you. Your constant “maybe THEN I’ll answer” (or we can “have a dialog”) suggests that (like a cute virgin temptress) you think there is a big prize in store for those who will wheedle (as KN has done with you). I think, though, that Patrick is just curious to know something about the views of the person he’s talking to–even if, as you say, it’s off-topic. Like asking a possible Nobel Laureate (or murderer) for the time.
Lizzie’s TAMSZ rule: “Assume all other posters are posting in good faith.”
Guano. Patrick is toying with and flaunting his TAMSZ admin/mod role. (And apparently he doesn’t even recognise it!)
For another TAMSZ mod/admin to actually Guano patrick would require consistency that has rarely been shown, in preference to their fellow atheists.
Gregory,
I’d suggest the discussion can continue in the noyau thread where the rule doesn’t apply.
Alan Fox,
First, perform your role without bias and Guano patrick’s post. It is clearly against the TAMSZ rules. If you disagree, go ahead and defend that violation at Noyau.
Just out of curiosity, Gregory, do you have a view on “The Global Flood”? Do you think it has any basis in legend? Was there a bottleneck of 8(?) humans? Was all land on Earth at one time briefly totally submerged under water that came from the sky?
Alan Fox,
Stop being silly atheist Alan. You have mod/admin privileges. Why haven’t you Guano’d fellow mod/admin patrick’s post, which is quite obviously against the site rules? Make the right choice.
Your questions are nonsense. They display bibliophobia (or perhaps scripturophobia, as Erik may prefer).
Gregory,
I am pointing out Erik’s objective, observable behavior. That behavior is not aligned with Lizzie’s goals for this site. The rules are intended to support the goals, not to require us to ignore obvious dishonesty.
Gregory,
Being an admin, Patrick, can do that himself. I understand his frustration. Patrick has already raised concerns in the moderation issues thread about how that rule can be undermined when used as a “professional foul” ploy. That thread is open for further discussion on how to facilitate dialogue rather than restrict it.
Gregory,
I will happily defend my comment in the Moderation Issues thread should you care to raise your complaint there.
Lizzie’s TAMSZ rule:
Ah yes, the ‘above the law’ TAMSZ admin/mod. And now it’s a duo, Alan Fox admin/mod supporting Patrick admin/mod. Lol, it’s an atheist conspiracy 😉
Atheist mods/admins at TAMSZ trying to hijack (by nauseas repetition of idiocy) the ‘varieties of religious language’ thread because they don’t know a relevant language other than atheism. Surprise?
Gregory,
If you have an issue with moderation here, please raise it in the Moderation Issues thread.
Erik made a claim in that thread about a supposed historical event. It is perfectly appropriate to address that claim in that thread. What is not appropriate, given the goals of this site, is his continued refusal to either answer the questions directly or retract his claim.
Your continued defense of Erik’s appalling behavior says a great deal more about your character than it does about the actual topic.
Whilst I appreciate your advice, as I tell any commenter aggrieved by a mod decision, there is a dedicated thread – the moderation issues thread for complaints. I’m happy to continue pursuing your complaint there.
Why nonsense? I think the possibility that human society passed through such a small bottleneck within a few thousand years myself is biologically untenable. I wondered if you had a different view.
There is not enough water on the planet to enable a global flood that covered all land. It’s simple physics. Do you have a different view?
Why do you call it bibliophobia to regard such writings as imaginative metaphor? I think parts of the Bible are charming narrative. The Song of Songs is great poetry.
Gregory,
Moderation thread, Gregory!
ETA comment moved as requested.
Alan Fox,
Stop lying, Alan. You didn’t move it. http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/the-varieties-of-religious-language/comment-page-33/#comment-93873
“Patrick on November 25, 2015 at 11:33 am said”
should be sent to Guano for clearly violating TAMSZ’s rules. If Alan won’t do it, if Neil won’t do it (and as usual, if Lizzie just hangs in the background), this site is a fucking joke of biased atheist congregation, pretending to be welcoming to non-atheists. 🙁
ROTFL – it’s a wonderful example of ‘unintelligent design’! 😉
Patrick,
“I am pointing out Erik’s objective, observable behavior. That behavior is not aligned with Lizzie’s goals for this site. The rules are intended to support the goals, not to require us to ignore obvious dishonesty.”
Why is it only okay for particular people (e.g. you) to bluntly point out what they feel is someone else’s “objective, observable behavior”?
And even though I don’t disagree with you about Erik’s excuses for not answering your flood questions, you have clearly violated the rules with comments such as these (this isn’t all of them):
“Intellectual commitment to honest discussion and the rules of this venue requires answering questions about one’s claims.”
“Please answer these questions directly and clearly or retract your claim. Any other response is cowardly, dishonest, and in violation of the goals of this site.”
“That is an out and out falsehood.”
“Brief, direct answers are all that is required. Alternatively, you could retract your claim. There are no other honest options.”
“It’s time you started participating here in good faith.”
“Either answer the questions or retract the claim. Any other response is dishonest and cowardly.”
“It’s still not too late for you to stop acting like a dishonest coward.”
“Either answer the questions, retract your claim, or find a venue that values your dishonest and cowardly behaviors.”
I and others have had comments Guanoed for a helluva lot less than your rule breaking comments, and there are also many comments (by various commenters) left in place even though they clearly break the rules. To say that the moderation here is inconsistent would be a major understatement.
And what the fuck is this shit from Alan:
“And we’d really like to see a response from Winston Ewert. Which is why the bar on off-topic has been raised higher specifically for Tom’s article.”
That’s a second, different excuse for removing a comment of mine from that thread and both excuses are lame. Alan’s first excuse was: “Tom would like to keep the tone civil and professional here.” Alan’s second excuse amounts to: An IDiot who isn’t even commenting in that thread or any other is catered to with made up privileges for him, and made up rules restricting me and other non-IDiots.
As I said before, the comment of mine that was Guanoed from that thread broke no rules, and what happened to that comment? I just looked through Guano, Moderation Issues, and the thread it was originally removed from and it is not in any of them.
Gregory,
In regard to this:
“…because they don’t know a relevant language other than atheism.”
Theism is a “language”? Why do Christians disagree so much, or at all, about their “language”? Is only Christian theism (“language”) relevant? Relevant to whom or what? How about all the other theistic gibberish (other religions) that people have thought up? Is all that irrelevant or relevant?
Reality,
I encourage everyone to call out dishonest, bad faith behavior when it happens. Provide the evidence and help improve the discussion.
You’ll note that I am very careful to refer to Erik’s observed behavior in this thread when making my criticisms. If you disagree with my assessment, provide evidence to support your position and I’ll consider it.
As I noted in the Moderation Issues thread, I believe that my comments are supportive of the goals of this site. The rule about assuming good faith should not require us to ignore behavior that is in direct opposition to those goals.
I agree. As I’ve said a number of times here before, the goals of the rules may be lovely, but the rules themselves are almost ridiculous. Both the “good faith” rule and the ad hom rule should be dumped. And people who show themselves to be incessant fuckwits (not for breaking any particular rule, but for driving everybody nuts and basically wrecking the site) should be warned a couple of times. then put on probation, and finally thrown the hell out.
If you want civil conversation, you have to be prepared respond to repeated provocations with some degree of force. I understand the resistance to “being like UD” (which largely makes banning a function of beliefs), but there’s no necessity of turning into anything like that. In fact, with Lizzie at the helm and the three admins she’s picked, there seems to me no possibility of it. The four of them are certainly more thick-skinned than I am, but that’s no excuse for allowing them to be turned into punching bags by two or three shitheads.
I’m an advocate of skin thickener.
I am not bothered by Eric or FMM or Gregory because I no longer read their posts (unless someone else quotes them or makes an interesting response).
Your mouse has a scroll wheel for a reason.
walto,
I just drove across three states (hey, it’s New England, they’re small states) and am just catching up, so this may already have been addressed. If so, please ignore what follows.
I don’t think that banning people is the right approach. The best response to bad speech is good speech. Ultimately the truth will out (don’t tell my mom I’m an optimist). My concern is that the rules tie the hands of those who support Lizzie’s goals and provide cover for those who do not. That should change.
I’d also like to see individual killfiles supported, so that each participant can decide who he or she wants to read. Unfortunately, I haven’t found a plugin that will provide that functionality yet.
If either ‘bad faith’ or ‘no faith’ were somehow ‘enforced’ here, by such a USA army/navy/marine as ‘Patrick,’ then 90% of the participants, i.e. all of the atheists would be disqualified.
Patrick doesn’t even seek to reach Lizzie’s goal of ‘common ground’ in his ad nauseam repeated questions, which are frankly the wrong questions. Erik has already answered that the ‘history’ Patrick seeks is only one level of inquiry. He doesn’t know the ‘historical’ answer Patrick is asking for. But since Patrick, like fellow atheist KN ascribes no meaningful content to ‘spiritual reading’, no answer he reads will possibly have value to him. And yet he keeps asking like a moron who simply doesn’t understand.
But it’s only possible the other person’s fault for atheist Patrick, of course!! 😉
Gregory,
Erik made a claim about a supposedly historical event. I am trying to understand the details of his claim. My questions are simple and could easily have been answered back in September when Erik originally made his claim.
The person behaving in opposition to Lizzie’s stated goals for this site is Erik. And you’re supporting him.