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.
I believe this is a typical petrushka-style comment and unwarranted. That’s what I believe.
I tend to not care for being lied about and misrepresented, so I blow a number of people off. If they want to take that to mean that I am afraid to discuss what I think more power to them.
All my OP’s here also clearly demonstrate my fear to say what I believe. The simple fact of the matter is that when a theist does say what they believe the response is to ridicule them. Or hound them.
I have a thread for people like that:
The Grand Inquisitor
[/quotemine]
Is it not possible that the ridicule is because their beliefs *are* ridiculous?
Obviously, Mung, you are atheiophobic and truthophobic 😉
I believe a number of odd things, some of which I’ve posted here. Perhaps I haven’t been ridiculed because I present them as my musings or speculations, not as truth revealed by god.
Ridiculous according to whom? Did you take a vote?
Is the ridicule of the beliefs of another person acceptable under the rules of this wonderful[ly confused] site?
I keep praying for a strong bout of skeptiphobism, but perhaps I am skeptiphobic and there are no real skeptics here.
Another wonderful petrushka-style comment, and equally unwarranted.
Erik claims his comments in this thread are revelations from God? Where did he do that?
Or were you referring to me personally? Crap, you weren’t addressing the poster rather than the post were you! I’ll assume you had someone else in mind, because if you were referring to me personally, I have no idea what you’re talking about.
Were you referring to Gregory?
William? Hardly.
fifth? probably. congratulations, sample size of one.
see here
It was done in the spirit of trying to persuade people to fork out money to watch the movie.
The source of Gregory’s inane Ann Landers quote.
It’s not as easy as this. You would first have to acknowledge that
1. Religious or spiritual meaning exists
2. It’s distinct from other meanings, such as literal, empirical, historical, metaphorical, allegorical, and moral.
3. It has a distinct nature, approached by distinct means, dropping literalist and empiricist presuppositions.
I was well on my way towards this discussion with KN, but he didn’t get over the last hurdle. You would not be able to get past the first.
You should rephrase 1 to something like “some people find religious or spiritual meaning in the world.”
My response would be, well, that is fine for them. If you claim that people like myself who find no such thing are spiritually blind, obtuse or deluded, then it’s hardly surprising that a dialogue doesn’t ensue. Beyond “live and let live”, I don’t see what else those of us who don’t share your presuppositions can say.
No, it was done in the spirit of trying to help atheists take a shot at making a ‘spiritual interpretation’ of the Noah story in the context of Creation. One needn’t watch the whole film for the purpose of dialogue here; just the video clip I linked above is enough. The cinematography is brilliant, don’t you think?
Personally, I don’t agree with the speech by Aronofsky’s Noah. The point is, Neil, it resonates with me BECAUSE I take the story seriously. There are so many relevant issues for humanity TODAY that can be discussed just based on that video clip. But Patrick, walto, DNA_Jock, hotshoe and the other atheists (or quasi-atheists in Jock’s case) either actually possess or have no competent language TO EVEN TRY.
What is prominent here on this site is an attitude of mocking the story, trying to empirically disprove the story, myopically reducing it to a single layer (e.g. historical/literalist) or simply not taking it seriously. But the story is a cornerstone of human existence for nearly 4 BILLION people around the world. It is our Creation story, not obsolete, but still alive. So the ‘skepticism’ here that simply refuses to even talk about it using your own ‘spiritual interpretation’ is rather insignificant, don’t you think?
Actually, Alan, here your language is too culturally relativistic and empty (or flat, horizontal) of human depth. And I doubt you understand what I mean on the anthropological level (because you would have to read anthropologists to recognise it) unless you give it a try. Can you ‘put on’ the words I’m about to write?
“Beliefs in supernatural/religion” is considered as a ‘human universal,’ e.g. by Donald Brown, and as quoted by Steven Pinker. Materialism is also considered a ‘human universal,’ as are ethnocentrism, rituals, poetry, memory, turn-taking and food sharing (http://condor.depaul.edu/mfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm). Trying to get rid of it as if it is just a ‘preference’ in your postmodern smorgasbord of ‘values’ is futile.
The point is, Alan, maybe something you wish to consider or perhaps already know and simply don’t care to change about yourself, is that religion has a social component, in addition to a spiritual component. Atheists are therefore social outcasts ‘by choice’ and often as a consequence of their dehumanising atheistic worldview and its moral un-anchoring. Many of them were damaged psychologically by family, friends or even sometimes by a religious environment that was not healthy in their youth. They are rebels, not only against God, but against human institutions (‘organised religion’ they often taunt) that may or may not always be seeking God’s grace.
You can tell the stories of your unbelief and/or previous belief, as several have done here already, to help us understand why you have ‘chosen exile’ into unbelief (& ideological ‘skepticism’) as a human error. petrushka, for example, used to sing in a church choir, even though he didn’t really ever believe the words that came out of his mouth. Why could he not put together the music with the words, faith with reason, both inspiring each other? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I8t-sQ8savg
For example, the 42nd Parliament of Canada began yesterday. The closing line of the Throne Speech, delivered by the Governor General in the words of the Prime Minister, was this:
The leader of Canada is not going to say something like “may divine providence, for ‘some people’ who believe in it, guide you…”. That would be just silly. ‘Faithful’ here also has both a religious and a secular meaning, on the basis that Canada is a country built and developed on belief in God … among the people, even if some Senators and members of the House are ‘other’ or ‘uncertain’ when it comes to their worldview/theology.
Mung,
Ridicule of other participants is against the rules. Ridicule of beliefs and other ideas is not.
Atheism is fucking stupid, are you kidding me? It is the most dehumanising, unintelligent, jaded, anti-social, awkward denial of personhood ever invented in the history of humanity. And that sentiment is demonstrated here in spades by Patrick’s stunted disability or unwillingness to engage Erik at any level deeper than mere empiricism or historicism.
Erik,
None of that has anything to do with your claim about a supposedly historical event.
Answer the questions or retract your claim.
Patrick,
Patrick is quite obviously a petulant child with almost zero understanding of the topic in this thread.
Gregory,
Gregory continues in his transparent and unsuccessful attempts to distract from the fact that Erik is refusing to clarify his claim about a supposedly historical event, despite recognizing that it is the moral thing to do.
Patrick continues in his glaringly evident inability to understand what this thread is about: Varieties of Religious Language. Patrick knows nothing about the topic. He ‘claims’ distraction, all the while distracting from ANYTHING spiritual himself and posturing as a pseudo-moralist. This is obviously a very sad, flat, myopic, empty, ignorant human being moderating here at TAMSZ.
Gregory,
Erik has stated that one of the varieties of religious language is literal and he made a claim about a biblical event that supposedly literally occurred.
He should clarify that claim or retract it.
Patrick,
You’re just (self-righteously) silly with your repetitive DEMANDS on the internet. Erik is probably laughing at your insistence. Facepalm fool.
Won’t you ever give up until you get the answer you think you want to hear?
I understand loud and clear as does probably everyone else who reads this God-forsaken site, that your atheist worldview denies you deeper interpretation. But you seem to parade self-righteous entitlement of empiricist answers. What a laugh!! 😛
Congratulations for demonstrating a first level of comprehension!!
Now, please start speaking about those OTHER levels. Or otherwise, better to stop with your pathetic DEMANDS. (I’ve come across few people who ‘can’t take a hint’ like this person pseudonymed ‘Patrick’ at TAMSZ.)
Gregory,
The answer I want to hear is Erik living up to his own moral standards.
Nothing you or Erik has posted here demonstrates any intellectual capability I have trouble understanding. I’m simply not interested in discussing how many angels can dance on the head of pin. The real world is more than rich and exciting enough for me. That’s why I’m interested in Erik clarifying his claim about a supposedly real world event.
Or he could retract it.
Yeah, right! All of a sudden Patrick is (self-dishonest) competent as a PhD in philology and sociology. 😉
There’s a word for this in economics. Patrick is a ‘one-trick pony.’
Gregory,
I never claimed that. My statement was in regard to the quality of your comments here.
My takeaway from this typical insulting rant of gregory’s:
1. He thinks humanism is dehumanising.
2. He doesn’t have the faintest idea what ‘historicism’ means.
Real nitwit stuff.
A fellow atheist jumps in. Oh, smarty! 😉 Sad, empty, ignorant, bureaucratic soul.
Well that’s your problem, not mine.
I don’t try to empirically disprove the story. That’s because it is trivially obvious that it is a story — an example of creative fiction.
Yes, politicians pander to the religious.
So what?
Seen from my vantage point, it is Erik who has been unwilling to engage.
My criticism of Patrick is that he has been too persistent in his attempts to engage, when he should have given up in disgust long ago.
Presented without comment:
vs.
Res ipsa loquitor.
So bring even just ONE of those “relevant issues” into discussion here, by, ya know, mentioning what issue it is, and why you think it’s ‘relevant”.
Or suit yourself and continue to rant that we’re the ones who won’t discuss your secret issue.
Where’s the shrug emoji?
Neil Rickert,
Criticism accepted. I might not change my approach, but I can’t disagree with your logic.
Kantian Naturalist,
Yes, the language is harsh. It’s a direct echo of the silly quotation Patrick posted. I did that to prove a point about the atheist communication here. Obviously it ‘struck a chord.’
And what about KN? Previously he tried to say ‘spiritual interpretation’ is possible. And then he disappeared (into atheist self-banishment?) from this challenging topic. Yet his fellow atheists here haven’t the decency or depth to TRY to discuss ‘spiritual interpretation’, even without the ‘spiritual commitment’ that KN himself lacks.
Maybe KN would comment on Aronofsky’s Noah, given they share an ethnic-worldview perspective?
Neil Rickert,
The problem is that you fail to engage the story, fail to discuss what it means, why it matters even today, who it involves, etc.
Politicians are people too. And this one (not a USAmerican, so perhaps your jaded sense of national politics need not apply) intentionally uses ‘spiritual interpretation’ regarding duty to country.
Even if that is your flat, empty-hearted, despairing reaction, as a marginal member of society, Neil, my response instead is: “So much.”
Hey Gregory, if you don’t like bureaucrats, you have more in common with Patrick than you think!
Just to whine a little, it’s precisely what I’ve been telling you for at least a month.
Guano, guano walto. Post not the poster. Silly atheist site.
Thank Maude that theists in western democracies no longer have the threat of the rack or the lash to make people talk about what you want them to talk about.
Gregory, maybe YOU want to comment on any of the “spiritual meanings” of the Noah movie, given that you have already said that it resonates with YOU.
Hahaha. If you can show me ONE of your many many nitwity posts (i.e., any one of your posts) that does not contain an ad hominem remark, I’ll send you a dollar.
In fact, if you can show me one of your posts that has anything worth reading it in addition to the insults, I’ll send you a dollar.
In fact if you can show me anything you’ve ever written anywhere that has a single sentence of worthy of interest in it, I’ll send you a dollar.
I can’t say I care for Aronofsky, generally. Whatever point he’s making, he hits you in the face with it again and again. Granted, I’ve only seen Pi and Black Swan, but both struck me as heavy-handed. I prefer directors with a lighter touch — Wim Wenders and Terrence Malik, for example.
As for the Flood story itself, one part of it that always struck me is God’s regret for having done it. Throughout the Hebrew Bible, we see God’s relationship with humanity evolving — it’s as if God has to learn how to be God. Through His regret, we learn that there’s an impulse towards violence and egoism deeply ingrained in human nature, and this impulse is ineliminable (Genesis 8:21). His response to this realization is to establish the first covenant with humanity. This is to say that since our egoistic or violent impulses cannot be eliminated, they must be carefully regulated.
There is a similar point made in an old Yiddish legend a rabbi once told me. In the story, a group of powerful kabbalists sought to make humanity good by separating the evil impulse (yetzer hara) and imprisoning it. When they did so, they discovered that chickens stopped laying eggs, cows stopped giving milk, and so on. The yetzer hara is part of the creative, generative forces of nature. It is not a bad thing in itself; it is bad only when we indulge it excessively, at the expense of others.
These days I think of the yetzer hara as a metaphor for what Buber called the I-It relation and the yetzer hatov as a metaphor for what Buber called the I-Thou relation. As bodily creatures with needs, susceptible to suffering (when needs are frustrated) and enjoyment (when needs are satisfied), we must strike a healthy balance between satisfaction for oneself and justice for all. The necessity to eat does not extend to the right to take food from another, or to consume more than our fair share of natural resources at the expense of other peoples, future generations, and other species.
Hey walto, maybe we can get the admins to send us a dollar for every post that abides by the site rules.
walto,
Yup, and I’m following your advice just as well as I’m following Neil’s. 😉
KN, I’ve seen you address the flood story a number of times and you’ve always had interesting things to say about it, including your latest. Appreciated.
Pi as in Life of Pi? That was not by Aronofsky.
For me the Bible is problematic for the same reason. NT and OT clearly present different concepts of God, and in OT God appears occasionally as a tribal god, occasionally as an embodied deity (Genesis 2), as Creator of the universe and occasionally as transcendent spirit. These are all different concepts of God, better kept separate and assigned different names, but they are all conflated into one God in the Bible. Anyway, that’s the kind of scriptures that Abrahamic religions have.
This Buber? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Buber
No, not Life of Pi.
Pi.
1998 trailer:
Hotshoe got it right. It’s an extended meditation on obsession and madness, with the major plot turning on how some kabbalistic secret is hidden in the digits of pi.
That’s a really nice observation about the different conceptions of God, both within the OT and between the OT and the NT. I’m not sure if they ought to be kept distinct, though; one can also think of those different conceptions as different phases in the evolution of human conceptions of the divine as our relation with the divine changes. But I can certainly see why the Hebrew Bible, Gospels, and Qu’ran will be problematic to someone who wants those conceptions maintained as logically distinct.
Yes, that one. I’ve read I and Thou several times (in English) and attempted the German a few times. That book has decisively shaped my life.
Which should be totally fascinating. But like you said, it’s heavy-handed.
I think the subject of obsession is inherently suspenseful: will he go mad in the conclusion, or will he have the genius breakthrough that proves he was right all along? I dunno, maybe the problem with Pi is that the protagonist actually is mad, and there’s nowhere to go from there that will be satisfactory. Critics rated it highly, though.
The reason why they should be kept distinct is, among others, that people may get the idea that one God evolves into another. God does not evolve. Concepts of God (or gods) may evolve, popular understanding of God may evolve, but God as transcendent spirit is always the same, while transcendent spirit is not the same as the tribal god who promises the tribe a land and helps them conquer it. They serve different purposes, one has no preference of one man or tribe over another, while the other does, so they are different things. When Christians talk about their “triune” God, they are talking about a different thing than God of Tanakh which is supposedly the same, but really isn’t. If it were the same, Christianity would be Judaism.