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.
Here’s what I find:
How is this different from the Ken Ham version?
This listener (or reader) concludes that KN is saying about the same thing as “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal.”
That’s my thought, but the folks who wrote that didn’t use the G word, and I suspect they avoided it.
No, we’re all interested in how you reconcile an “orthodox Jewish interpretation” with your own personal statement that fossils on Ararat/Everest are (somehow) connected with some “global flood”. You said this:
That statement does not accord with “Jewish interpretation” but you chose to make it for some reason. What’s your reasoning?
That statement sounds exactly like something Ken Ham would say (which is mighty suspicious coming from you, supposedly not a “creationist”) but it’s not Ken Ham who is the problem here. It’s what YOU choose to say, and then what YOU choose not to answer.
We ask you and ask you because we are all interested. So you’re not exactly telling the truth that anyone has “not been interested in it”.
Yes, the answers could be different.
Erik,
I don’t care about exegesis at this point, as I’ve made perfectly clear. I am trying to clarify what you mean by your claim. That’s all.
As I’ve also made perfectly clear, discussion of evidence is premature at this point. You have still not clarified exactly what it is you are claiming.
Either answer the questions so that your meaning is clear or retract the claim.
Explain this statement by Patrick: “I’m not interested in the text at this point.”
Looks to me he is not asking about my personal interpretation of the flood story. By what stretch of imagination does it seem to you that he is?
But let’s concede that he is asking about my personal interpretation (even though he isn’t). Now, how would my personal interpretation of the flood story help him (or you) to clarify my statement “Of course the flood occurred. The Bible has been found historically reliable.”? And anyway, I have given the orthodox Jewish exegesis of the text, which also leads to the same conclusion: The flood occurred. Where’s the problem? From my point of view, the problem is in Patrick’s wilful lack of understanding despite the fact that his questions have been answered.
Erik,
What you haven’t given is an explanation of exactly what you are claiming happened in reality. Please do that by answering the questions posed, or retract your claim.
Good catch, Petrushka!
Erik,
Everyone else here understands that I am asking not for your interpretation of a story but for the details of exactly what you mean when you claim “Anyway, of course it [the biblical flood] occurred. The Bible has been found historically reliable.”
Answer the questions to clarify your meaning or retract your claim.
Which detail has not been answered?
Neil,
The Declaration refers explicitly to a capital-C Creator:
Jefferson was not an atheist.
Erik:
Desperate to dodge until the very end.
Poor Erik — you have absolutely no confidence in your beliefs, do you?
Hoo boy.
I bet you’re a great witness when you testify about a traffic accident you were involved in.
You say:
The accident occurred. What’s the problem. How will it help the cops figure out what happened if I give my personal interpretation.
Well, for starters, the cops need to know the facts (to the best of your knowledge, of course, not assuming that you are actually omniscient) such as :
When did this accident happen?
Where did this happen?
Were you inside one of the vehicles involved or were you somewhere else nearby?
Did the cars remain at the scene or did one or more of them drive away before police arrived?
Did you see any injuries?
Did you experience an injury yourself?
But no, you say, the accident occurred. End of story.
Good for you!
Erik,
When you make the claim “Anyway, of course it [the biblical flood] occurred. The Bible has been found historically reliable.”, using those words, when are you claiming the biblical flood actually happened? Are you actually claiming that the flood was global? That is, did it cover all the planet simultaneously as described in the Bible? Finally, are you saying that immediately after the flood were there only eight people alive on the entire planet?
As repeatedly explained to you, these are questions about what you mean by your claim. Not about hermeneutics or exegesis, not about Jewish tradition, not about anything anyone else wrote on this or a related topic. This is about what, exactly, are you claiming actually happened.
Please answer these questions directly or retract your claim.
Erik, you might think you’re only making claims about how to understand the text, but in the course of doing so, you also made a claim about reality. It’s your claim about reality that everyone else here wants to ask about.
Perhaps not, but he did clip out all supernatural stuff from the “Jefferson Bible.”
Kantian Naturalist,
As has been made painfully clear for quite some time.
“The deluge in the time of Noah was by no means the only flood with which this earth was visited. The first flood did its work of destruction as far as Jaffé, and the one of Noah’s days extended to Barbary.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_in_rabbinic_literature
I would be satisfied if Eric simply clarified what he means.
When he says something actually happened, perhaps he has a private understanding of what it means that something actually happened. It’s a mystery.
And I have not answered? Let’s get to basics then. Define “answer” and how this does not qualify as such http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/the-varieties-of-religious-language/comment-page-30/#comment-94200
Erik,
No, you have not. Here are the questions outstanding:
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 fill in the blank after each. It shouldn’t take long.
Let’s instead assume that you’re posting in good faith and not playing silly buggers. Fill in the blanks or retract your claim.
Erik,
Pointing to your explicit refusal to answer:
is not an answer.
Clarify your claim or retract it. Even you agree that doing otherwise is not moral.
I don’t think this could be called orthodox, even if the writing is old. I’d be interested in the scriptural authority for multiple floods and their extent.
Erik, I have to assume from your linked answer that you are taking the writings of ancient rabbis over the words of the bible. Fair enough, if that is your intent.
I would be interested in their sources for the actual history, as opposed to the story as it appears in the bible.
Note carefully. The topic is the varieties of religious language. Absolutely everybody participating in this thread, even Patrick, keiths, DNA_Jock and hotshoe, understand that religious statements are different from empirical statements. We are not arguing whether the difference exists. Instead, some are arguing whether there should be such difference (basically, if religious language should have a right to exist), but I resist any attempts to treat religious language as empirical language. Treating religious language as empirical defeats the purpose completely.
My point starting with my very first post in this thread has been that scriptures are more-than-literal, they make claims that are larger than nature, they are supernatural. And that that which goes beyond empirical, literal, and natural is the very essence of scriptures, i.e. the essence of scriptures is supernatural, spiritual. To treat scripture like history book or astronomy book strips it from its essence and there will consequently not be any chance of understanding religious language.
To discern that essence of scriptures, it will not suffice to interpret literally. Literal reading will invariably result in failure to discern the spiritual essence of scriptures.
So, for those who are interested, how should one proceed in order to discern the spiritual essence of scriptures? This does not mean simply reading metaphorically or allegorically – that would be poetry or fables, not scripture. If you want to discern scripture specifically, as distinct from poetry or fables, metaphorical or allegorical interpretation will also not suffice.
The guidance to understand religious language will be gradual for those who are worthy, ready to make the necessary very subtle and difficult distinctions and ready to work oneself through them with sincerity and diligence. A good place to start is the traditional exegesis. So, those ancient rabbis are not simply my quirky preference. It’s the correct place to start, if anyone is actually interested in understanding scripture as scripture.
Understood. You are not interested in scriptures. For history, read history. Pretty obvious, isn’t it?
No, I’m interested in claims that the Noah flood actually happened. This is a claim about history. We already know what the bible says. We want to know why yo claim it actually happened.
Also, you labeled writings as Orthodox that do not appear to be orthodox.
Erik,
Treating empirical language as empirical has no such problem. You made an empirical claim about a supposedly historical event. Please answer the outstanding questions required to clarify that claim or retract it.
That’s a rather unintelligent statement, especially coming from a person who quite obviously considers themselves rather ‘intelligent’ in their ideological atheism 😉
While the atheists here are busy diddling with their empirical-historical (even for the entire Bible!) fetishes, let’s clarify the score. Not a single person posting in this thread other than Erik when speaking Scripture-philologically (and perhaps Mung?) thinks there was a historical (biblical) flood, involving a ‘real’ person named Noah? Is this correct? Anyone wish to jump on the historical bandwagon now? Otherwise you are simply not genuine to demand a ‘personal belief’ from Erik without stating your own.
No, didn’t think so. You are mainly radical ‘skeptics’, after all, and mainly atheist and anti-theists too. A sad minority of delusion. You are anti-Scripture from an anti-spiritual perspective. (But will return to bleating ‘Erik made a historical claim’, as if that excuses you from answering a single, simple question!) It’s been a bumbling ‘gotcha!’ attempt from the start and patrick obviously isn’t ashamed by being boring or interpretatively naive.
What is painfully evident is that the atheists (and pseudo-atheist, perhaps ‘agnostics’ like DNA_Jock) here are anti-Scripture and biased by that very fact of their worldview. It’s amazing to me as a non-USAmerican how aggressive and impassioned the atheist minority there have become against ‘literalism’ and how reactionary to it their perspective now is. Even when they pretend to recognise multiple levels of Scripture (e.g. KN), they still return to bashing their favorite opponents, when Erik is not a ‘literalist’ or YECist.
Erik, non-English native speaker who writes rather well in English (!), is not like the people you folks face-off against most angrily in USA. It doesn’t seem anyone recognises this on the ‘atheist-skeptic’ team at TAMSZ, including the admins.
As for ‘Varieties of Religious Language”, here’s another story that atheists, agnostics and anti-theists here simply won’t like to hear and will most probably avoid to their soul’s disenchanted despair: http://www.intercollegiatereview.com/index.php/2015/12/09/3-myths-about-irreligious-america-busted/
I agree, but then I am utterly bewildered as to why you thought it important to say that the Flood was an actual historical event.
Isn’t saying that the Flood was an actual historical event precisely an instance of treating religious language (Scripture) as empirical (history)?
Gregory,
I trust Stark as a sociologist of religion. But suppose he’s right about the data, that tells us nothing about whether it would be a good thing or a bad thing if Western societies were more secular. Just pointing out what is the case doesn’t help us resolve our debates about what should be the case.
That strikes me as a polite way of recapitulating Patrick’s question.
Kantian Naturalist,
That is a welcome gesture.
You’ve also taken a new tack in recent days, calling yourself ‘religious.’ Whether its from some kind of assertoric/disclosive ‘epiphany’ or something more meaningful is yet to be seen. But it is imo a start.
To me, that’s not the right question. (And you are seemingly in a rather unprepared position to discuss ‘Western,’ especially in the USA these days; many ‘westerners’ don’t want to be associated with and frankly reject the bullshit ‘neo-imperialism,’ including economic, coming out of the country of your birth.) Taylor’s 2009 book concentrates on 3 meanings of ‘secular,’ which it doesn’t seem you are yet familiar with or at least don’t yet demonstrate. Stark plays the same card in the linked essay re: (post-secular) religion. (And it was the first time I’d seen the term ‘secularisationist’, which of course makes sense, and largely so here at TAMSZ based on the motives of the many anti-theists, which surely you haven’t missed.)
I’m not impressed that you’d stoop to a simple is-ought/should statement. But your political-worldview still seems amazingly confused & esoteric to me. Perhaps that’s because I’m not an atheist (religious) Judaist and simply don’t understand the contradictions you seem to regularly demonstrate. It doesn’t mean I don’t sympathise with the challenge & history.
One step at a time. God is patient. 🙂
Welcome back BruceS.
Not that __________ is interested in understanding religious language. Religious language is for nutjobs.
It’s amazing to me how a simple lack of belief in God or gods, which has no entailment, can be almost instantaneously and without thought turned into a disbelief about anything to do with God or gods.
Is there religious language for that?
It amazes me how a simple claim of historical veracity can be deflected as involving faith.
Erik has certainly replied to Patrick’s multiply-repeated questions about Erik’s assertions regarding the historical reality of Noah’s Flood. However, there’s a difference between replying to a question, and answering that question. In case anyone reading this is unclear on the distinction:
Case 1:
John Doe: “What’s your name?”
Richard Roe: “My name is Richard Roe.”
Case 2:
John Doe: “What’s your name?”
Richard Roe: “I’m not going to tell you.”
In both cases, Roe has replied to Doe’s question—but only in one case, Case 1, has Roe answered Doe’s question. It is unfortunate that in common parlance, the word “answer” can be used in reference to both replies-to-questions, and actual answers-to-questions.
Personally, I’m quite comfortable with the notion of multiple layers of meaning in text. But when someone says “the Bible is historically valid”… well, for some reason I don’t, at first blush, regard “the Bible is historically valid” as being a statement about the Bible’s layer of spiritual meaning, or the Bible’s layer of moral/ethical meaning, or the Bible’s (insert other candidates for non-literal layers of meaning). To me, unsophisticated as I am in the wily ways of Xtian apologetics, “the Bible is historically valid” strikes me as, first and foremost, a statement about the Bible’s layer of literal meaning.
Now, if two historians were discussing the tools and techniques by which historians reach conclusions about how to judge the reliability of textual evidence, I could see “the Bible is historically valid” as a statement regarding how well the Bible does or doesn’t stack up with regards to the tools and techniques by which historians judge the reliability of textual evidence. But apart from something like that specific situation, yeah, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that “the Bible is historically valid” bloody well is a statement about the Bible’s layer of literal meaning.
For someone who has explicitly declared that they don’t think the Bible’s layer of literal meaning is all that significant, Erik sure is putting a lot of effort into arguing with people who dispute the historical accuracy of at least one portion of the Bible’s layer of literal meaning. Curious, that.
Methinks The laddy doth protest too much. If historical veracity is not important, then don’t defend tall tales as actuality happening.
I’m sure there was a flood somewhere, some time. Noah’s flood, no.
Midrash Rabbah is not orthodox? That would be major news to Jews http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/midrash-101/
“Midrash Rabbah, the “Great Midrash,” is the name of the collections linked to the five books of the Torah and the “Five Scrolls” (Esther, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, and Ecclesiastes) read on holidays.”
Scriptures are more-than-literal, and their essence is other-than-literal, but to say that the literal meaning is not true (as you do) is to say they are less-than-literal. How would you make more-than-literal and less-than-literal go together?
Besides, “not true” equals “false”, which would make scriptures a lie rather than scriptures. I am utterly bewildered how anyone can think it possible to treat falsities as scripture. To stress that the flood is historical should be as basic for a Jew as to stress that Jesus was historical for a Christian. To believe that scriptures are not historically false is basic to any understanding of religious language. How can “spiritual” and “liar” go together? I can easily see how they can go together for a non-spiritual person, but I prefer to keep words to their proper meanings.
The subtle thing here is that since the point, purpose, and essence of scriptures is other-than-literal, it often happens that literal reading makes no sense. When this is so, it’s not an indication that the literal is not true. Rather, it’s an indication that it’s superficial to read literally. As St. Augustine says, “[2 Corinthians 3:6, “The letter kills, but the spirit gives life,”] merely prescribes that we should not take in the literal sense any figurative phrase which in the proper meaning of its words would produce only nonsense, but should consider what else it signifies, nourishing the inner man by our spiritual intelligence…”
With the flood story, things are not so subtle though. The description makes sense on the literal level, so if anyone pledges allegiance to religion or spirituality in such a way that the allegiance actually means anything, then the flood occurred, just as in normal archeology, if you dig up ruins of a city at a certain place, then the corresponding city was situated at that place, and not elsewhere. Not too complicated. It gets complicated only when you forget what I just said in previous paragraphs. The complete picture without any reductionist atomisation is important.
Erik,
I am utterly bewildered that anyone can think that scripture must be true.
Erik,
No, it doesn’t. That’s why Christian geologists, who would have been happy and relieved if the flood story as told in the Bible had turned out to be true, nevertheless felt compelled to reject the literal interpretation because the evidence was overwhelmingly against it. It doesn’t make sense “on the literal level.”
Case 3:
Answer http://theskepticalzone.com/wp/the-varieties-of-religious-language/comment-page-30/#comment-94200 (notice the three points answering the questions)
Patrick: Repeat the questions ad nauseam whining “I want to understand.”
Conclusion: Patrick’s lack of understanding sure looks painful, but he has not shown how I have not done my part to alleviate it. Or how it is my job to relieve him from ignorance in the first place.
Erik,
To borrow cubist’s terminology, those points reply to Patrick’s questions but they don’t answer them.
You’re not fooling us or anyone else except perhaps for Gregory, who badly wants to be fooled.
To borrow cubist’s example:
Patrick: “What’s your name?”
Erik: “I am thirty five years old. I was born in Cleveland and I play tennis badly.”
Erik,
From the referenced comment:
That looks exactly like cubist’s second scenario. You have never answered the questions that would clarify your claim.
It’s hard to notice answers that don’t actually exist.
Since you don’t seem to understand the concept of a direct answer, here’s an example of how an honest person who is participating here in good faith might address the questions I’ve raised. Remember, your repeated claim is “Anyway, of course it [the biblical flood] occurred. The Bible has been found historically reliable.” and these questions are to determine what you mean when you make that claim. Try something like these options:
1) When did the flood you claim happened occur?
– 2000 BCE
– Sometime in the last 10,000 years
– It never occurred in reality
2) Was the flood global? That is, did it cover all the planet simultaneously as described in the Bible?
– Yes
– No, it covered _____ area(s)
– The biblical flood was not an historical event
3) Immediately after the flood were there only eight people alive on the entire planet?
– Yes
– No
– The biblical flood was not an historical event
Those options are what direct responses look like. Feel free to pick one of each or come up with your own equally direct response to each question. Or retract your claim. Either choice is aligned with the goals of this site. Refusing to answer is not.
Erik,
So you keep claiming, but you haven’t yet answered the questions that would clarify what you mean by that claim. Please do so or retract it.
To put it in a perhaps more poignant way.
My position consists of these elements:
1. Scripture is distinct from fiction.
2. Scripture is multi-layered both in interpretation and narrative.
3. It’s thoroughly inspired, i.e. none of the layers is false. (Falsity on some select level applies to fiction, not to scripture.)
4. It’s a good idea to be consistently committed to one’s own position. (As in intellectual honesty and integrity, you know.)
Here you are directly attacking the point #3. It would be a non-issue, if I were a reductionist atomist nominalist (and perhaps postmodernist and other such things) like yourself. But I am a holistic essentialist and all the points in my position depend on each other.
If I let #3 go, then there will be no way to distinguish scripture from fiction. Thus #1 will fall and I would end up treating scripture the same as fiction. When I treat the two the same way, then I have no actual basis to call one thing scripture and another thing fiction. To be systematic, I should call both scripture and fiction by the same name, in order to hold on to the point #4. But when I call both by the same name, then I manifest myself as as an atheist or agnostic, not as a theist. But I happen to be a theist. Ultimately, in my insecurity, I could end up like you, calling one thing scripture and another thing fiction purely based on tradition or based on who I am talking to, not based on my understanding of the difference of the genres. Meaning, I could end up letting go of the point #4.
See what you are utterly bewildered about? Thanks, but no thanks.
@Patrick
Care to lay out what your position consists in? (Other than aiming to disconfirm my position. This I knew from the very beginning, a few moons ago.) A more complete picture of your position would be appreciated, thanks. If not, I will conclude that, in addition to your other character flaws, you are a coward who likes to shoot from behind the fence towards people in the open field.