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.
What claim? About my behaviour? This is not the topic here. Get on topic. The easiest way for you to get on topic is to engage with my actual answers.
You say you are interested in my claims. If so, then engage with the claims, with their context, and with their elaborations. If not, then you are just a liar and a bully, not really becoming for an admin. You are really not interested in my claims. You have ruined any chance of meaningful dialogue here.
Erik,
You have not answered questions about your claim concerning a supposedly historical event. In fact, in addition to evading you have explicitly refused to answer them. This behavior of yours is fully documented in my summary comment.
Your claim is “Anyway, of course it [the biblical flood] occurred. The Bible has been found historically reliable.” That is a claim about historical reality. Please answer my questions to explain exactly what you mean by the words you wrote or retract your claim. No other option is moral, by your own stated standards.
He HAS answered many questions relevant to the OP of this thread. AND he has answered that he doesn’t know the answer regarding historical specifics.
Of the thousands of words by now that Erik has written, myopic Patrick ONLY wants a direct, empirical answer to one sentence of 12 words. He has done *nothing* whatsoever to display whether or not he has any knowledge or familiarity with the historical reliability of the Bible. It surely appears that he doesn’t have such knowledge or familiarity. And he doesn’t seem to care that it is EVEN POSSIBLE to make a ‘spiritual interpretation’ of Scripture, a point that KN was willing to concede before running away atheist insensitive when “whole hearted spiritual commitment” was on the table (since secular Jews don’t have that).
If Patrick can’t take a hint to “Get on topic,” then his posts should simply be removed to another thread, after all his complaining about morality, ‘good faith’, bad behaviour, etc. This guy ‘Patrick’ is showing himself as a narrow-minded, arrogant, demanding, shallow human being, who simply cannot accept that people live vertically and read Scripture with many layers, not just as literalists.
The main problem seems to be that even if Erik answers Patrick *exactly* how he wants to be answered, that Patrick STILL won’t understand there is more to learn than the silly, empirical-historical questions he is demanding an obvious answer to.
Sigh, some people simply refuse to learn and stick their fingers in their ears!!
patrick, what you’re failing to get here is that it is of no importance–to this site or to anything else but some weird itch in you–whether erik admits the obvious. Sure, I can ignore your badgering, but I think it might be worthwhile for you to consider why the hell this is so important to you. you act like this is a Star Chamber or something. You’ve made your point.
walto,
Physician heal thyself.
my doctorate is in philosophy, not medicine. 😉
Also, while I’ve written maybe 10 posts on this subject, you’re in the 700 range. if you don’t like my (also true) nudgying, imagine how Erik feels about yours.
No, actually, he has not. He has stated that “traditional Jewish exegesis” is unclear on the subject, but he has resolutely refused to answer the actual question(s) asked. He’s made a number of allusions to extra-textual evidence to support his position, while refusing to divulge what the heck that might actually be.
What an interesting hypothesis. I wonder if there is some way that we could test it…
😉
walto,
Perhaps it will inspire him to address the questions about his claim, in accordance with the goals of this site.
I find the response I’m getting at least as interesting as I hope to find the discussion of Erik’s claim, once he clarifies it. You are apparently upset with me for continuing to request clarification in order to be able to have a discussion about Erik’s claim. You show no such judgement about Erik’s refusal to answer my questions, despite such refusal being opposed to the goals of this site.
It’s not quite victim blaming (there are no victims here other than some ideals), but the underlying logic seems similar. You are more annoyed by the person pointing out bad behavior than by the bad behavior itself. If you think some motivations are worth examining, I suggest starting with those underlying that emotion.
If you have anything more interesting to say about this, I’ll be happy to respond. More scolding will probably simply be ignored.
One wouldn’t expect the TAMSZ persona called ‘DNA_Jock’, who is an outspoken and PROUD atheist, to ever actually address the theme: “Varieties of Religious Language.” It’s much more comfortable for him to HARP on a CLAIM, along with his atheist buddy Patrick. Low-life, means inability to speak across layers, to recognise ‘spiritual interpretation’ differs from mere literalism. But there’s not much more to hope for a contribution on that topic from the likes of the scum-level atheists on this site. Pleading “I WANT … I WANT” certainly won’t do it to potentially keep them on topic.
The character of religious language is apparently beyond just about everyone on this site. Erik has provided much food for thought, but you’d rather starve on a bare bone of skepticism (8 people!?!?!?!).
Gregory,
Keep throwing up more words about what we could be talking about. Perhaps if you do it enough everyone will forget about the fact that Erik has not addressed questions about his claim. If that doesn’t work, you can always try the “Hey, look over there!” gambit.
Erik, this another example of changing the subject, Whether or not you ‘relate Atlantis stories to the destruction of the Minoan civiiization’ has no bearing whatever on whether Atlantis (as hotshoe and nearly everyone else now uses that term) ever existed.
I think you actually understand this on some level, which is why I say you’re weaseling when you change the subject in this fashion, which you regularly do.. If I thought you didn’t realize this, I would consider it an honest error based on your misunderstanding of what people mean when they say things.
Patrick,
It’s enough what has already been shown. You’re a stubborn person, obviously, repeating ad nauseam as if people DON’T HEAR YOU, the first time. Likewise, shallowness and myopia, thinking only your question is the right one. In this case walto is right about your ridiculous spewage.
And thanks, please move those off-topic posts to Moderation thread, since that is where they belong. At least you can be consistent for something. 😉
patrick, I call erik a weasel every time I call you a badger. what do you want, egg in your beer?
SO? That actually makes Patrick’s point for him.
If Erik doesn’t know “regarding historical specifics” then he should NOT have made the claim he did regarding the historical reliability of his copy of the bible.
Or, at the very least, he should honestly reply to follow-up question with an answer something like “The sources I read [insert here] say that archeological science supports specific historical incidents as reported in the old testament. See [insert more here] for one specific detail which you (atheists) should admit is as telling as the discovery of Troy”
Instead we get mindless tossed-in claims that fossils on Everest might suggest to some kinds of backwoods fools that the Flood tale was based on some real flood(s) somewhere sometime.
How does that even work?
Why are you defending the stupidity and cupidity of Erik’s tossed-in nonsense about vapor canopies and 600-year-old patriarchs?
What do you get out of defending the most stupid and outlandish christianity when it makes “your side” look so awful?
Why don’t you demand that Erik “elevate” himself from his backwards and frankly unchristian insistence that all scripture must be literally true at one level as well as having spiritual meaning, or else it’s not – by definition – scripture?
🙂 🙂 🙂
Gregory,
Erik says that one of the “varieties of religious language” is literal. He made a claim about a biblical story being literally true. It’s all on topic, despite your desire that it not be.
walto,
I don’t know, I never tried it. Is that supposed to be a treat or a punishment?
It’s all in the price of the pelt.
hotshoe_,
As a start, to address a mean-spirited (as you’ve admitted about yourself here several times) person, such as you, one who is not mean-spirited must try hard to be even-handed.
Yes, I think Erik could still clarify himself further about the historical reliability of the Bible, providing links for discussion if necessary. Many Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Baha’i scholars are available for this, and Erik has already sent links which were ignored by the anti-theists here. So, the blame should not be only on him, but also on his interpreters for not looking.
What you, walto, DNA_Jock and Patrick are TOTALLY UNWILLING to face, it is rather obvious already, and which only KN (to his credit!) has yet faced here (at least, if memory serves – I don’t spend that much time here), is that ‘spiritual interpretation’ and ‘spiritual commitment’ (which KN admits he doesn’t have) differs from the questions that YOUR KIND (meaning atheist, anti-theists) are disposed to ask. Erik has said time and time again that he is interested to discuss that topic in this specific thread, in an effort to find ‘common ground.’ But you, being a mean-spirited atheist honey-pie sour-turtle, atheist anti-theist have refused to engage him. That, of course is no surprise!
In the end, ‘hotshoe’, whoever you are in real life, that’s your loss. At the death of even old atheist ladies with quick-witted tongues of fire and dust, your haughty self-irresponsible ideology simply doesn’t matter. Nothing will elevate or lift you in the face of ultimate emptiness and despair, Sagan’s pale blue spot, not for the science, technology or earthly power. But you won’t be able to say at that moment that nobody tried to show you another way. We did. Just as hard as your miniscule intellect and heart allowed, you ignored it and played your silly little fiddle.
Erik is not a Christian. If you’d been paying attention you’d know that. But you don’t.
Thanks to admin for uploading photo: http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/the-varieties-of-religious-language/comment-page-37/#comment-96741
Meme advice from Ann Landers? Really, Gregory?
Are you sure that’s where you wish to go?
Gregory,
“No one has the right to destroy another person’s belief by demanding empirical evidence.”
— Ann Landers
Wow. Just . . . wow.
You do realize that the fingers in the ears image represents those people who are afraid of having their beliefs challenged, don’t you?
Erik is not afraid of having his beliefs challenged, Patrick. He has been very open in this thread. It is you, have a look in the mirror for God’s sake!, who have been myopic, badgering, bullying and insistent that only your question to only one of Erik’s many, many sentences is worth your precious (Gollum) time to explore. If you took your head out of the sand in which you’ve angrily planted it, your heart out of it’s stubborn insistence that your intellect is so sure of atheist anti-theism … and THAT’S A BIG IF … just maybe you could begin to understand something about those important observations Erik has contributed in this thread re: ‘interpreting Scripture.’
But you don’t really care about that, do you, Patrick? Why not? Because to you, in your OPINION, based on a weakly educated ‘interpretative’ approach, and based on no identification of ‘spiritual commitment’ in ANY religious tradition, you personally deny such a person as ‘Noah’ ever existed, don’t you? There was no Ark. God didn’t (and still doesn’t) communicate anything directly with human beings because of human wickedness. That’s just an imbecilic outdated stone-age belief, isn’t it?
And FUCK STEPH CURRY (AND MOST OF THE GOLDEN STATE WARRIORS), THE BEST PLAYER IN THE NBA, ONE AMONG BILLIONS OF PEOPLE FOR BELIEVING IT TOO, not just ‘Gregory’!!
You think Genesis 6: 5-8 is simply a bullshit fairy tale with no human value, don’t you? Come clean with your low-level dehumanising ideology, finally, won’t you ‘Patrick’? Or no, just return to discussing a single sentence with questions whose answers you have already determined in your myopic worldview favour?
Yes, so he has said. And I am not an atheist. If you’d been paying attention you’d know that.
And I have engaged him on his preferred topics; turns out we pretty much agree on the Varieties of Religious Language. Just not on the historical accuracy of the Flood story.
Ease up on the sauce, Gregory, and have a cookie.
DNA_Jock,
Yes, I know you’ve said that. So, then how do you classify your worldview?
Gregory,
I’m glad you’re getting something out of Erik’s writing. I would like to understand his claim well enough to continue discussing it with him. Hopefully he will answer my simple questions about his exact intended meaning soon.
Argumentum ad athleta. That’s an interesting logical fallacy.
I don’t think the flood story is supported by any evidence, but perhaps Erik is making a claim about an historical event that is. As soon as he answers a few questions about what he means by his claim, we’ll be able to investigate further.
Do you simply think Erik has only made A SINGLE CLAIM in this thread?!? Is that all you’ve read? Or are you completely mad? What about all of the other conversation?
Continuing to try to place the burden on Erik instead of on yourself and the obvious lack of intelligence, wisdom or knowledge you’ve displayed here regarding lack of ‘spiritual interpretation’ is disingenuous. No doubt you’ll continue with that impoverished line, as if nothing else could possibly be comprehended by others, even your fellow atheists. Such a devlish self-deceptive ideology you’ve displayed in your bullying here, Patrick. 🙁
Patrick:
He’s been doing that a lot lately. It’s… bizarre.
Gregory,
No. Do you deny he made a claim about a supposedly historical event? You seem very eager to draw attention away from that claim, but he did make it. He should answer questions about it or retract it.
“No one has the right to destroy another person’s belief by demanding empirical evidence.”
— Ann Landers
Gregory,
Do you actually agree with that?
Well, given that you wrote
If you offer a sufficiently grovelling apology, then I might classify my world view for you.
Here you go:
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?0qid=20080609122743AAf4jsH
http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/58363/what-is-the-origin-of-the-phrase-egg-in-your-beer
I’ve asked Eric at least five times to explain or clarify the religious or spiritual meaning of the flood.
A reasonable person might take that as an invitation to move on and begin a more productive dialog.
But what I’m getting from Eric and Gregory and Mung, et al, is a mixed message. the historical veracity is of minimal importance, and it is so important that it must be defended to the death of us all.
One could easily maneuver around this impasse simply by stating something like,
“I believe an actual flood was the inspiration for the gilgamesh/noah story, but the details don’t matter. What matters is …”
Followed by a discussion of what matters.
That’s the kind of response I expect of grown-ups.
Exactly.
You and I clearly have the “wrong” reading on the meaning of the Flood tale; we’ve both said something like its spiritual meaning boils down to “don’t piss off the Big Guy” … and we’ve been slammed for it as being shallow dehumanized or whatever.
Well, I admit that given my prejudice against the genocidal tyrant of the OT, I’m not likely to be convinced by any other “spiritual meaning” they propose. But that doesn’t explain the fact that they haven’t even tried, not one word of meaning, only the repeated insistence that there is one (which atheists won’t accept because shallow, dehumanized, etc.)
Again, I admit I probably won’t accept it. But they’ve kinda skipped the evidential step where they actually provide the spiritual explanation and then test to see if I accept it or not.
I think that would be a great experiment! I think Erik (or Gregory) should get right on it!
What about it, boys? What’s the actual meaning which matters for the Noah tale?
petrushka,
True that.
[*grabs popcorn*]
I’ve never seen such a collection of believers who are so reluctant to state or discuss what they believe.
FMM is pretty fearless. I think he’s a loon, but I’m sure that sentiment is reciprocated. There are worse things in life than being considered a loon.
I suppose if I had to say what it is I dislike about certain kinds of loons, it would not be the content of their beliefs, but rather it would be their attitude.
But I have to tread lightly here, because plenty of people on the evolution side are certain of being right.
But I don’t detect (personal blindness?) quite the same kind of sanctimony in a Dawkins or the like. I think most scientists could be persuaded by evidence that some heart-felt theory or fact is simply wrong.
Genesis 6: 5-8
Give us your best hermeneutics, folks. 😉 You’ve probably got a Bible in your locale and if not, the internet surely does. Tell us what you think.
p.s. “don’t piss off the Big Guy” would fail an elementary biblical hermeneutics class
Heh.
Gregory’s idea – apparently – of how to test a “spiritual explanation” of Noah’s flood is merely to tell us that we fail at the one we’ve already mentioned.
But not to add anything of his own.
Does Gregory lack all conviction? Does Gregory lack knowledge? Lack persuasiveness? lack interest in persuading? Interest in anything other than drive-by sniping? I dunno. I’m hypothesizing but I have no idea how to test my hypotheses.
Do tell, Gregory. Let us in on your secret. Don’t just taunt us that there is a secret somewhere.
Gregory,
Well, my reading of 5-8 is “Plan B (levonorgestrel) is okay”, although I do have to wonder about all the unnecessary collateral damage that Yahweh is contemplating in verse 7. And what the relevance of verse 4 might be.
But what do YOU think?
Link added again because perhaps there is one poster here brave enough to take a shot at making a ‘spiritual interpretation’ of the video. In my experience, USAmerican 18yr-olds prove far more courageous than the (mature children) backwater atheists/anti-theists here to offer their own ‘spiritual interpretation’ of this clip. So far, not a single soul has even acknowledged this powerful depiction and speech.
In your opinion, do YOU happen to be the “one poster here brave enough”?
Yes? then take YOUR shot at “making a spiritual interpretation”,
No? then quit yer unseemly whining.
Gregory, we have a thread (it’s called noyau) where the rules about making personal attacks on fellow members are relaxed. Participation in the noyau thread is voluntary, however, and my only option is to move comments in other threads that make personal attacks to guano.
That image I sent you, Alan, it’s still not uploaded. Just a little box with no thumbnail. Thanks.
Since the Noah movie has been linked here a couple times I wnt looking for a review I remembered:
Aranofsky says he did lots of biblical research to make Noah, and he believes that what matters is the “message” not the historical details.
So why does Aranofsky fail to edify the “congregation”?
And why were so many groups of Christians, Jews, and Muslims outraged by the movie?
He’s a believer. Is he the wrong kind of believer? Is that why other believers don’t agree with the message he put into his film?
WOW – Alan Fox is now defining ‘lazy’ to one of his fellow admins as a guano-worthy term!! 😉
Is calling Patrick “too lazy” considered a ‘personal attack,’ Alan? He knew about these threads many hours ago, but did nothing, while continuing to post his ignorant, low-level atheist bluster.
Gregory,
You’re testing my patience. We do not offer a 24 hour admin service. Admins work unpaid on a voluntary basis.
Alan Fox,
The other option is to automate. Sorry, but whens I wants an image posted, it’s not based on your schedule. 🙁 And getting kicked repeatedly by atheists who are almost never censored/guano’d here is patience enough. Honey pie, sweet cheeks, cupcake, hotshoe is a blatant example, who your KIND of admin apparently protects, Alan.
I just asked for an image to be uploaded in a post, according to Lizzie’s stated rules … so, whenever you’re ready. If you have another solution, float it to Lizzie.
Gregory,
The last image you asked me to upload (of Russell Crowe) is where you asked me to put it.
Alan Fox,
If so, ok. Thanks. It doesn’t show on my screen, even after refresh.