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.
Erik,
I assumed good faith initially when I first asked you to clarify your claim. Your behavior thus far does not support that assumption. I am still interested in understanding exactly what it is you are claiming and I’m more than willing to re-assume good faith on your part once you answer my questions.
My opinion of your character has nothing to do with the questions I’ve asked. You made a claim about a supposedly historical event:
You’ve reiterated this claim several times. I want to understand exactly what you mean by this. That is, what are you claiming happened historically in reality. Hence my 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?
There are no “gotcha” questions here. I am (still) genuinely interested in understanding what you are claiming happened.
Your presuppositions are not pertinent at this point. Your claim is about a supposedly historical event. I want to understand when you claim it happened, its scope, and its consequences.
I am enforcing nothing. I am asking you to align your behavior with the goals of this site and answer my simple questions directly. When you have done that and I understand exactly what it is you are claiming actually happened, then we can talk about evidence that may support or disconfirm your claim.
I’ve been in order throughout this discussion. The actual topic is your claim about a supposedly historical event. You can either clarify exactly what you mean by that claim or you can retract it. No other option is compatible with the goals and rules of this site.
Answer the questions so we can get to the interesting part of the discussion.
That is long. Can you summarise the argument for your position from there?
As for me, the multi-layered POV of the interpretation of Genesis goes back as far as exegesis has been documented.
ETA: Cancel “As for me…”
With you I was talking fossils and that. I learned the Bible originally from JW’s – a good crash course really, recommended if you are interested in the Bible. They are literalists of course, so they have the kind of evidence for the historicity of the global flood, that I have mentioned.
I was never able to square it with the fact that the very next story in Genesis is the Tower of Babel. Later I learned that Jews always believed (as far as documented) that if Noah is taken historically, then the flood was not global, and this makes much more sense.
Erik has spoken about much more than simple historical interpretations of Scripture. Since Patrick disbelieves in Scripture, no answer Erik gives could possibly satisfy his positivistic demands.
If Patrick got smacked in the face with answers, which he already has, he *still* wouldn’t acknowledge he’s been answered.
Patrick is an uneducated, faithless conversational dictator. As such, he *should* be nominated admin at TAMSZ! 😉
Patrick is uninterested in exegesis. So he should humble himself and shut up. But that’s not what TAMSZ’s militant atheist admin is ‘all about.’
Gregory,
Yes, but he has still claimed that the biblical flood actually occurred. That is the claim I am trying to understand.
Do you deny that Erik is making a claim about a supposedly historical event?
Patrick,
Patrick, if you were a man interested in knowledge and understanding, you would have followed the links provided. It does not appear that you have done that.
Erik has spoken about MUCH MORE than simple historicity. Are you oblivious to that or not? Please state whether or not you even understand that.
Gregory,
Yes, he has. None of that changes the fact that he made a claim about something that he says happened in the real world.
I ask again, do you deny that Erik is making a claim about a supposedly historical event?
Okay. If presuppositions are not relevant, then withdraw your questions, because they are loaded with your presuppositions. Plus your questions are off-topic – they are not about religious language.
The other option: Revisit basic comprehension concerning what makes dialogue possible.
Apparently, being genuinely spiritual means that you’re entitled to make claims about historical events, even if there is no evidence from any empirical science that justifies those claims, as long as none of the empirical sciences directly contradict your claims.
Erik, to Patrick:
Dialogue is not possible when you refuse to answer pertinent questions. The dialogue has been stuck where it is for weeks because of your refusal.
Your behavior is the problem, Erik, not Patrick’s.
Erik,
No, they are explicitly intended to avoid any presuppositions or assumptions on my part.
They are directly on the topic of your claim about a supposedly historical event. Stop trying to evade clarifying and simply answer the questions.
You made the claim. You have the obligation to clarify and support or retract it.
Kantian Naturalist,
It seems to go further — being spiritual seems to mean that you don’t have any responsibility to answer questions about your claims that might clarify them enough to risk disconfirmation.
No one would ever accuse you of that, KN. 😉
Even though you nevertheless toy as an obvious philosophist with having ‘understanding’ of what it means to do ‘spiritual reading.’ It’s a shame on your Jewish upbringing, which doesn’t seem ever to have been religious.
Being spiritual means to trust the scriptures you rely on. Trust them in everything (because otherwise they are not scriptures).
As far as empiricism goes, is the flood disproven? If not, then how is belief in its historicity unjustified?
Was it wrong of Schliemann to believe in the historicity of the war of Troy? What about the generations who preceded him?
Better: Trust them in everything (because otherwise you are not showing them the respect appropriate for scriptures).
Your continued lack of reading comprehension is noted. The answer is in my very first post in this thread.
If we were to discuss solely my beliefs and my preferred manner of interpretation, there would never have been any occasion for this discussion about literal historicity, because I said from the start that the priority is on the spiritual, not on the literal. But I am having this discussion with regard to traditional exegesis so you would know that it exists and that you could address it if you wanted to. Except that you don’t want to – and you blame me for it.
Erik,
No, it isn’t.
@keiths
Yes, DNA_Jock’s interest in “YOUR beliefs” has the answer in my very first post.
Now, for a change, what are your beliefs concerning the topic? Why do you think that only literal reading matters over spiritual? What are your views concerning the multiple layers of narrative in scriptures and in mythological literature?
Erik,
Here’s DNA_Jock’s question:
Your comment does not answer that question, so please stop pretending that it does.
I’ll be happy to address your questions after you’ve addressed Patrick’s and DNA_Jock’s, but I won’t reward your evasions in the meantime.
Stop your goddamn whining about “off topic”. YOU were the one who first brought up your idea that Flood happened in real history — and maybe you’re kicking yourself now for doing that — but that was what enlarged the topic from “religious language” to “religious claims about reality”.
You don’t like it, apologize to everyone for wasting our time and go home. Or even don’t apologize and just go home anyways.
Yes, I said it was long. You were asking for both evidence, and the history of the discovery and analysis of that evidence. This material can’t be captured in any detail without including the detail. The summary I already provided – that genuine believing evangelicals trained in geology set out to document and ratify the biblical tales, and after much effort were obliged (being honest) to come to regard this tale as being theological and moral, but emphatically not historical.
I think it is important that these people were not objective – they were pre-convinced of the historical nature of the flood tale. They did not set out to evaluate the story, they set out to document it.
As a comparison, Mormon archaeologists have been striving for decades to document Joseph Smith’s stories of the Lamanites and the Nephites. These archaeologists do good, solid work. And they have been lately conceding that Smith made it all up, and for the same reasons: evidence on the ground everywhere they have looked requires that the stories be false.
But there IS a hint of less than good faith in hand-waving away as “too long” a detailed account of what you say you wish to read.
We understand the question differently. The question you refer to was answered in another thread. DNA_Jock knows this but he is patricking the answer. The question I refer to is answered by understanding what I said in the very first post in this thread.
How about your evasion of my very first post in this thread? You started this hammering of the literal reading against my explicit statements my first post in this thread.
The keyword here is evangelicals. As I said, I was biblically trained by JW’s who are a sect of evangelicals. I never became a member partly because they could not resolve what I saw as contradictions in their interpretation of the Bible. Their view of the historicity of the flood story differs from the traditional view. The traditional view of the historicity of the flood makes more sense.
Erik,
DNA_Jock made it absolutely clear what the question was:
Your dishonesty couldn’t be more obvious, Erik.
Right back at you http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/wine-cellar/comment-page-15/#comment-94883
No, evangelicals is not the key word — and “evangelical” does not apply to the majority of christians in the current world who accept that no flood as described in Genesis ever happened. Every rational christian with even a grade-school understanding of science knows that the flood as described could not have happened, ever, unless god not only miracled the flood to begin with but also miracled away all the evidence afterwards.
Why you continue to believe that something approximately as described in Genesis could have happened in our real world is your problem. Not the JWs’ problem, your problem. Not the evangelicals’ problem, your problem.
Remember, you’re the one who thinks that flood stories in multiple cultures is somehow corroborating evidence that the bible story really happened. That would only be a valid inference if the flood were global – or nearly global – thereby affecting all those distant unrelated cultures at the same time. Otherwise, they’re just insignificant local water-related stories with no spiritual meaning whatsoever.
Yeah, it rained a lot somewhere, some people got wet, some turkeys drowned, sorry about your luck, dudes. Nearly global flood, though? Never happened. Seriously traumatic flood in the plains of Babylon that wiped out all the nascent Jewish tribes except for eight people? That never happened, either.
Thank god that never happened. The fact that Noah’s flood never happened in our real world is the only thing which saves your god from being convicted as a genocidal maniac. But do feel free to continue to abjectly worship your god who hates all his people and willingly murders all his created animals and plants to prove some kind of point to eight supposed survivors. Suit yourself!
Erik,
This is pitiful. You even quoted DNA_Jock’s question:
The answer is not there. Your statement is false.
Your comment in the other thread also fails to answer DNA_Jock’s question.
The question, again:
Your non-answer:
DNA_Jock didn’t ask you about “the traditional Jewish exegesis of Genesis”, and neither did Patrick. Why won’t you answer their actual question?
As I said:
hotshoe, to Erik:
Given the Indian Ocean tsunami, I’d say he still qualifies as a genocidal maniac.
Well, yeah, I shouldn’t have said “the only thing”. If christians are honest about their beliefs of god being the creator of everything – including the source of tsunamis which wipe out hundreds of thousands of people, including completely innocent babies, and animals and plants, too – they would have to admit “genocide” is the most valid term for what god does.
Of course, when god doesn’t exist, god doesn’t create tsunamis, so god isn’t genocidal after all.
But I focus on Noah’s tale because we don’t happen to have a christian here crazy enough to publicly credit their god with that tsunami disaster (god sending us a warning to mend our modern ways, or some such?) whereas they all study the bible which glorifies the Noachian genocide, and Erik specifically avows that it happened as written (well, more or less as written). So he reads the text, thinks about his god sending a flood-disaster (even if not global and not killing everyone but eight on the whole planet) which was so horrific, so deadly, that Jewish tribes were still talking about it hundreds or thousands of years later. He thinks about that and he still chooses to believe that it was good,
Good for some unknown spiritual reason? No theist has ever come here and explained what spiritual lesson we could see in the Flood. Erik could be the first if he wanted to.
He keeps saying he wants to talk about spiritual meanings, not literal ones. Funny, that.
You did not read the essay, did you?
The “traditional view of the historicity of the flood” is that it simply was not a historic event. That essay that’s too long for you to read, explains exactly why this has become the traditional view. Even for sincere religious believers, evidence matters.
Flint,
Yes, and that’s what’s behind the question in my OP:
Funny we never get an answer to those questions, even from the person who says that’s what he wants to talk about (and blames us for dragging him off topic).
I read it up to this point, “The great founder of Methodism, John Wesley, omitted virtually all dialogue with relevant authors and current debates about the nature of the deluge in his exegesis of the text.” Do you understand or do you not understand the emphatic meaning of this sentence?
To me it says that from this point on, the article is centred on the scientific enthusiasm of the evangelicals, and it is not concerned with the orthodox/catholic view. The article is interested in debunking Anglo-American evangelicals.
I skipped to the conclusion of the article. It says, “As we have seen, the idea of a universal deluge was the settled interpretation of the church for nearly seventeen centuries, but that changed as a body of compelling evidence undercutting that interpretation gradually accumulated.”
The article does not establish this conclusion. It cites evidence only from mid-seventeeth century onwards and restricts itself to the English-speaking world. The settled mainstream interpretation, dating back as long as exegesis has been documented, is that if Noah was a Hebrew, then the flood was not universal. The only change meanwhile has been from evangelical overenthusiasm to disillusionment.
To me it matters, yes. How about you? Any interest in actual settled and established religious beliefs, or only in debunking, nevermind the truth?
Erik,
That may be your priority and what you would prefer to discuss, but you made a claim about a supposedly historical event. You have an obligation under the goals of this site to explain what you mean by that claim and support it or retract it. Once you have addressed that claim that you made about reality, feel free to focus again on the spiritual interpretation. Your preference to ignore the claim you made does not make it disappear.
Several of us have asked Eric to discuss the moral or spiritual message of the flood, and he has declined.
I do not think it is honest for him to say he wants to discuss this aspect of the story.
Summary Comment
This comment summarizes my still unanswered questions about Erik’s claim in this thread. Several other participants have complained about the volume of my responses to Erik. I’ll use this comment to hold the details and simply reference it as necessary in the future. This should make it easier for those people who aren’t interested in this part of the discussion to scroll by.
On September 20, 2015 at 4:50 pm (date and time to make searching easier if the link fails) Erik made this claim:
Since then I, and several others, have been asking Erik to clarify exactly what he means by this claim. He obviously seems to be referring to an historical event. The questions I’ve posed are:
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?
I’ve repeatedly made it very clear that I am asking Erik what he means by his actual claim. Until that is made clear, discussion of scriptural or other claims are not pertinent to the discussion. Once Erik has explained exactly what he means by his claim, we can begin discussing the evidence that might support or disconfirm it.
Erik has thus far failed to address these simple and straightforward questions. One way he attempts to evade answering is to say that the questions are off topic for the thread. Since he is the one who made the claim in this thread, that objection is unfounded. If he doesn’t want to discuss it here, he is free to retract his claim.
Erik has also attempted to evade answering by trying to redirect the
focus to a topic he’d prefer to discuss. One example of several in
this thread is on 2015/11/29 at 1:11 am:
Erik’s preference to discuss anything other than the claim he made about an event that supposedly really happened sometime in history does not eliminate his obligation to either clarify and support, or retract, that claim.
Erik has shown that he understands the questions he is being asked by explicitly refusing to answer them on November 26, 2015 at 7:24 pm:
Neither of these supposed issues eliminate his obligation to address questions about his claim by the goals of this site.
Speaking of the site goals, here they are in Lizzie’s own words:
Erik’s behavior is not aligned with these goals. His only honest options that are aligned with the site goals are to explain and support his claim or retract it.
Right. It’s not as if Patrick’s repeated question is stopping Erik from discussing a spiritual message if he wants to. Erik says he wants to, but then somehow he doesn’t ever actually do what he says he wants.
And that conduct says a lot about Erik … or at least about the fact that there is no spiritual message in the Flood fairytale other than “Don’t diss the Big Guy or he’ll drown you”. Which pretty much no theist in today’s world is willing to admit to themselves, much less open up for discussion.
Too bad for the proto-christians that they were so tied to Yeshua’s Jewish roots that they couldn’t jettison the old books, accidentally lumbering themselves with all those horrific tribal tales which would later become abhorrent to every decent human being. They would have been much better off if god had whispered to Saul on the road “Drop the old books. Start with a completely clean page”.
It’s almost enough to make one think that god didn’t want anyone to grow up to be a christian.
Erik,
I’m interested in what you claim happened in reality. Please address the questions you have been evading in my summary comment of November 29, 2015 at 5:40 pm.
moved a couple of posts to guano.
Gee, is that such a surprise?! Apparently ‘Patrick’ is too imbecilic or anti-religiously activistic even to accept Lizzie’s ‘suggestion’ to let it go.
So, will this finally be the last time for you to ask 3 simple questions that demonstrate you don’t understand the topic of discourse, Patrick? Or do you plan on rubbing it yet again, in the face of Lizzie’s advice?
The ‘obligation’ Patrick seems to think he is entitled to and the DEMANDS (is there another word for it?) he makes as a sad, angry, skeptical atheist and anti-theist is a testament to the emptiness and ultimate despair of the core mission of this blog and its admins.
Continue to support this line of thinking, TAMSZers please do it! It shows how unimportant Lizzie’s suggestions are and how corrupted your views of humanity have become.
Gregory,
My three simple questions demonstrate a desire to understand Erik’s claim about historical reality, which is certainly aligned with the goals of this site. I understand perfectly what the topic is, despite your attempts to obfuscate.
I’m comparing Erik’s behavior with the stated goals of this site and pointing out where they are not aligned. I am genuinely interested in understanding his claim. I look forward to that happy day when he chooses to share the details.
On the authority of an angry, intentionally mean-spirited woman (as she has said here at TAMSZ)? As if that means much.
Really, no spiritual message possible, even from an agnostic Jewish director with little “spiritual attendance”? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwSWRdbSQK0 One of the best technological depictions of ‘creation’ and ‘fall’ yet available on the screen.
Genesis 6: 5-8 has *NO* spiritual message BY DEFINITION as interpreted by atheists? Who says this? And what about for others?
Gregory,
It’s not a quote mine. Erik has reiterated that claim several times.
I will do everyone the favor of not responding to your irrational defense of Erik any longer.
Moved a post to guano.
Well, the atheist admins are at it again 😉
Patrick, your “three simple questions” demonstrate depravity, not enlightenment. If you had a desire to understand, you would have read the links provided to you and responded to them. But you haven’t.
If you don’t want to even try to grapple with ‘spiritual interpretation’, please just say so. We’ll understand you better than simply having to listen to a forced historicist question, again and again. You might not realise how amateurish your questions are, but that doesn’t mean others don’t hear/see it loud and clear.
You’ve been quote-mining a single thing Erik said as if that is the ONLY point of your ‘desire for understanding.’ What a myopic approach!
Grow up. It is pathetic. It is misguided. And it is boring. Obviously, a man without faith (you are an atheist, as you’ve said) cannot assume Erik is posting in good faith. Sadly. Yet your personal disbelief is therefore understandable. You’ve said your due more than enough times than a DEAF person needs to hear.
Lizzie made a suggestion. Do us all a favour. Stop.
I think gregory in particular conflates religion with Christianity. So when he ridicules conservative American biblical literalists, he is ignoring vast numbers of Muslims, most of whom are required to believe in a literal flood.
Patrick’s question is not trivial. There will be trouble in Europe over science and religion.
petrushka,
Well, mostly over religion. Physicists and chemists don’t throw down so often anymore.
Science vs religion.
The way most silly atheists here at TAMSZ frame it is dehumanising to say the least.
(WOW – admins are on an unreasonable anti-theist censor/Guano tear right now!Oh, is calling atheists ‘silly’ allowed? Please, grovel, gollum, dear atheist admin, let it pass your noble filters! LOL.)
There’s tension on both sides of the Atlantic between secularists and anti-secularists, and it is an interesting fact that in the EU, the anti-secularists are predominantly Muslim. (In the US, the anti-secularists are predominantly Christian.) But “science vs religion” is a very sloppy and unhelpful way of thinking about secularism vs. anti-secularism.