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.
Oh, there are dozens of varieties of metaethical theories in analytic philosophy. I’m scarcely familiar with the basics. But there are versions of anti-realism, realism, cognitivism, non-cognitivism, and so forth — and emotivism isn’t even the only version of non-cognitivism on offer these days. It’s all quite abstruse. Honestly, I don’t understand analytic metaethics and I don’t understand the point of any of it. (Contrary to what Gregory would have you believe, I’m not an analytic philosopher!)
One could say that, but I would strongly resist that move myself, since that seems to — among other things — open the floodgates to epistemic relativism. “It’s only a theory!”, etc.
Whether reality is ultimately continuous or discrete seems like a different question than whether emanation is preferable to emergence, no?
I note that, while there’s been a ton of dicta, nobody has yet explained to me what it means for a text to be “literally true.” (I gave explicit instructions against–even threatened grade reductions for!–pomo responses, but as petrushka pointed out, they have been ignored.)
These back-and-forths likely began on other threads (perhaps keiths’ Bible problems missives), when someone asked something like “Was the Noah story actually true?” That morphed into responses about whether the flood that was being described was really local rather than global. So far, I understood: maybe by “the Earth” all that was intended was “The known Earth” and by “the people” was meant “the people around here.” If there are arguments about that, I get it: they’re about the truth conditions under various interpretations. We can even consider several interpretations and discuss which, if any, are true, based on historical/scientific evidence. And it might make sense to do this, because figuring out the correct or “literal” interpretation of the Bible (or any old text in a foreign language) can be really hard.
Check. I get all that.
So one poster says, “You know what? The Bible is not only literally true, it’s figuratively and esoterically true.” I take it the latter two are a matter of saying something like “Hey, that’s good poetry! It really moves people.” That’s good to know, but nobody was asking about that, really. It’s not T.S. Eliot, maybe, but most people will concede there are some really nice, indeed powerful passages in the Bible.
That’s a sidelight though. When it was asked if the Flood story or Samson or or the virgin birth or whatever is actually true, the questioner wanted to know whether the answer believes that the material–interpreted as literally as we can–corresponded with the facts of the world–not if it gave a thrill to read it.
If there’s a doubt about the correct literal interpretation, that can be provided by the questioner, at least tentatively. He or she can say–Let’s suppose that they really meant “global” as we mean “global”–did the Flood really happen? (As I said above, none of this is terribly complicated, even if getting the interpretation right is.)
But now, rather than answer these simple, obvious questions, there is a move to fiddling around with what “literal truth” means. That, IMHO, suggests that while the answerer does not want to admit the text is NOT actually true (as most competently interpreted) s/he can’t actually support the claim that it is with sufficient historical/scientific evidence. So the dancing about what “literal truth” is begins with a nice pirouette.
If I understand this correctly (and I admit that may not) seems to me to be no more than pomo weaseling. Just answer the goddam questions.
To his credit, Fifth does that. He can live with people thinking he’s wrong. And, while I think he’s often wrong, in my (admittedly pea-brained, fallible, philosophist) world, being wrong beats weaseling.
keiths’ questions, Patrick’s questions, petrushka’s questions, Glen’s questions, DNA_Jock’s questions–they are all quite clear. Everyone knows exactly what they mean. Cut the bullshit, grow a pair and answer them.
Is there something unique in scientiic text that makes it the best way to gain knowledge regarding how to predict, control, and explain the spatio-temporal world. I’m thinking of factors like:
1. Scientific text can be other than natural language: mathematics, algorithms, diagrams, mechanisms, and so on.
2. There is no single author of the theories currently under consideration or considered the consensus. Rather, there are (mainly) transparent processes for each community of scientists to contribute to this text and to critique the contributions of others.
3. The process in 2 is revised pragmatically by that community of scientists to make the process a more reliable way of achieving the goals of prediction, control, explanation.
BruceS,
Very useful! Thank you!
I worry that “do you or do you not believe that the Bible is literally true?” has become our version of “are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?”, much as “do you or do you now accept the Law of Identity?” has become, over at Uncommon Descent, the litmus test as to whether or not one may be admitted into the Community of Rational Agents.
Erik rejects the conceptual basis of the question. He’s entitled to do that. He’s not weaseling, waffling, quaffling, or queasling. He has a completely different approach to the meaning of Scripture than the approach you wish he had, and that’s not his fault.
The local flood vs global flood controversy is a non starter. The story is quite unambiguous about the waters covering the mountaintops.
Even covering the regional mountaintops would require a global flood.
There is, of course a perfectly sensible response to how this could have happened without incinerating the earth or leaving evidence. The relevant text is found in Disney’s Fantasia, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice. Just say it’s magic and be done with it.
What the Bible says is not a mystery.
I’m still waiting for a clear explanation of why the Book of Mormon is not better attested that the New Testament or the tablets of Moses. Are eyewitnesses and signed affidavits not convincing when they are inconvenient?
Is the lack of archaeological evidence relevant to Mormon teaching, but not relevant to Genesis? Should we not reach beyond the “history book” interpretation of Mormonism?
How about Xenu, guys? Should we not reach beyond the “history book” reading?
What puzzles me is why so many posters at TSZ are interested in whether the Bible texts like the flood story are true in the sense that they correspond to historical events, such as Hurricane Katrina (which is how I understand what such posters are interested in).
I personally find that line of questioning uninteresting.
Why do so many posters have different interests than me? I believe that for many posters these questions are actually stand-ins for determining one’s attitudes to whether fundamentalist religious views should influence American politics, and that accounts for the importance of such questions to them.
I see it as a way of asking “Are you insane or are you merely crazy?”
To me, the persistent demanding of answers to that question seems to be in bad taste (and often pointless).
I would be interested in what theists have to say about the moral and ethical message of the flood story. I’ve asked several times.
Bruce thinks the questions are uninteresting. KN says they’re tantamount to a criminal interrogation. I point out merely that they’re not actually complicated, vague or ambiguous. (Also, there are no penalties attached to answering truthfully–it’s the weaseling that may be painful to one’s conscience.)
Jesus, what a lot of whining and dancing. If people want to indicate that they prefer not to answer (in effect, plead the fifth), that’s ok too, there will be no repercussions. I just can’t stomach all the bullshit. It gives me GERD.
I forgot to mention that Neil says the questions are rude or indecorous. (And I don’t have the Edit link for some reason.)
Please. They’re simple questions. This only seems like an interrogation because of the weird reluctance to give straight, honest answers.
FWIW, in the Jay Rosenberg paper Comparing the Incommensurable he talks about theories as stories throughout eg:
“suppose we take seriously, then, the idea that a new theory epistemically qualifies as an acceptable successor by earning its credentials as a better story than its predecessor(s) of “how things (really) are”.
As per my previous post replying to Eirk, to me what is important is what qualifies a story as a scientific theory which is currently under consideration by the relevant scientific community (which is separate from questions of realism).
walto,
I myself don’t think any of the stories in Scripture are literally true, but I also don’t see why it’s a question worth asking. It just doesn’t seem philosophically interesting to me.
Maybe the questions are simple, but I am not sure the answers are for a person with a structuralist approach to literature.
Religion has historically been more about power than about philosophy. People have lived or died based on such shibboleths. People make laws based on doctrine. Serious laws that imply death, torture or imprisonment. You cannot sweep this under the rug just because some recent European theologians discovered textual analysis. The goon squad is still running the world.
Canada, of all countries, is considering a blasphemy law. Half the world (give or take a bit) has blasphemy laws. The United States has a president who thinks it’s a bad thing to criticize religion.
That’s a really odd criterion. If I ask you how you are or when your birthday is or what you think about Putin, those aren’t philosophically interesting either. There’s a ton of Bible hocking on this board and some of the regulars want to know if the hockers think the book is literally true. If this isn’t an interesting subject for you, I’m not sure why you’ve spent so much time advising Erik not to give a straight answer. You could read a philosophy book instead.
I’ve already flunked those guys! 😉
What about Quasi quasi realism and Pseudo quasi quasi realistic prescritivism?
And, of course Non-non-naturalistic non-naturalism and The only apparently erroneous quasi error theory.
Not a very complete list, I fear.
Hey, try to take this stuff a bit more seriously., will ya?
Simon Blackburn was able to write many books and articles by using that quasi- prefix. And now he is on YouTube. More than once!
Also consider emulating the attitude of most other posters at TSZ. They know how to respect weighty philosophical argument!
Fair enough. But I wonder how the structuralists would interpret that you-flunk discourse.
In any event, although the structuralist answers may not be simple, they are interesting.
Is there any chance that you take literary science to be anything else than pomo? Is T.S. Eliot, as a literary critic, pomo or not?
I see.
Not really. Because those who dismiss everything as “only a theory” have to state what they accept, and they have to state the criteria of what they accept, so that the acceptable thing can be distinguished from “only a theory”.
On the perspective that everything is a text or a story, the criteria are highlighted. In literary science, everything is a text, and the text’s characteristics, relations, context, etc. make up the genre.
Yes, it is, but I was settled on the continuum basically since I was born. The choice between emanation and emergence is determined by what one takes the continuum to be. If it’s inert, and consciousness is an “emergent property”, then one is an emergentist. If, on the hand, continuum has the potential for absolutely everything, and particulars are a reduction or devolution of the continuum, then one favours the theory of emanation.
This is, frankly, a serious reason why I cannot give a more direct answer than I have already given. Because I want rational discussion.
When I answer, I want my answer refuted on a rational basis. But in this atmosphere, I am quite sure that only ridicule will follow and rationality will be entirely out of the window.
Still, in my own view I have already given enough material that could be refuted. For example dismantle the claim that ice age was the flood. But nobody has taken the bait. I’m quite sure nobody will be taking rationally those other details either. They will merely laugh at the answer.
walto,
Well said. You win the Monster Hunter International straight shooter badge for the day.
Bruce said:
It’s not puzzling at all. Attacking an imagined hyper-literal interpretation of the Bible is the easiest venue for scoring ridicule and rhetorical points for anti-theists/anti-Christians.
It was? ETA: sorry, I misread your “I was” as “It was”. Anyway, the link still works.
Is Reality Analog or Digital?
Kantian Naturalist,
One of Lizzie’s goals for this forum is for people to understand the basis for their disagreements. Asking questions about the claims people are making is the only way to understand them well enough to do that. If someone says “I believe because of my faith, despite the evidence”, that helps me to understand where they’re coming from better. When people refuse to answer straightforward questions, that strikes me as less than honest and not in line with the goals here.
You have yet to address the fact that Erik made this specific claim:
That’s a claim about reality. I’m just asking him for clarification of exactly what he means before I spend any more effort on addressing it. Why are you defending his rhetorical squirming?
A couple of things that may be of interest and are related to topics in this thread:
Alan Lightman considers the appeal of miracles
[SEP] has achieved what Wikipedia can only dream of
Neil Rickert,
I find the weaseling to avoid answering straightforward questions disrespectful of one’s interlocutors and possibly indicative of a character flaw.
This is The Skeptical Zone. If someone isn’t prepared to explain and support his or her claims, he or she should retract them.
walto,
Some days it really is much harder to dislike you than others.
Well, perhaps doing that once or twice might not puzzle me. But making a posting career out of it does puzzle me. I agree that some posters here seem to do that, at least that is how their posts strike me. Politics seems like good [ETA:] explanation for that, if I am being charitable.
No idea. I’ve read only his poetry and one libretto.
ETA: Dunno if you’re really interested in this question or if it was a just rhetorical device you used to make a point, but If the former, a good friend of mine is something of an Eliot scholar, and I could ask him what he thinks about it.
I wanted a serious discussion, which is why I stated that the “Attack on Pearl Harbor” was a festival of fireworks and fun.
No one has discussed that thesis with gravity and sincerity, either.
Why? Why?
Glen Davidson
To make a point of course. The point is that you whine about pomo without knowing what pomo is. Of course no answer can satisfy you when you don’t know what kind of answer you want. And you should not be interested in the kind of answer that you want anyway, but in the correct answer.
Okay, let’s disregard for now how abhorrently you misuse the word “reality”.
Yes, I claimed that the flood literally occurred (never “literally true” though). I also said why I thought it occurred. One reason is that cataclysmic flood stories are common folklore across the world. This is called evidence from multiple sources. The stories half a globe apart may relate to different events, but stories originated in the same area and roughly the same time (such as Gilgamesh and Noah) more likely relate to the same event.
As to how global it was, well, ice age was pretty global. Doesn’t retreating ice look like subsiding flood? And the extent of oceans compared to the area of land mass looks like still fairly flooded planet.
You have done nothing to address these claims. Instead, you ask me to “support” these claims. These claims are support for the belief that the flood literally happened. The fact that you are not addressing these points tells me that you are not really interested in what I believe about the flood story.
Well, for starters, the ice age didn’t kill things, at least not species. There have been lots of ice ages, but none of the recent ones have caused a lot of extinction.
I have suggested that the end of the last ice age caused a lot of flooding. Possibly some catastrophic regional floods. It is not crazy to think that one or more of them might have been passed on as legend.
I don’t see how this has religious implications. Unless we draw spiritual meaning from the tendency to tell bullshit stories about the causes of natural disasters. Is that the lesson intended in the Bible?
That kind of question used to get me in trouble in college classes.
I tend to draw my own conclusions, which may differ from those of priests. I don’t mind knowing what people thought thousands of years ago, but I don’t see it as very different from the unproductive thinking that still goes on. It may be useful in a sociological and epidemiological sense to understand defective ideas, but when you can move past them you should. It’s sort of like being potty trained.
Why does not having read T.S. Eliot’s lit crit entail that I don’t know what pomo is? And here’s another question for you: Is it possible for to you ever make a post that doesn’t include idiotic remarks of that nature?
Erik hasn’t engaged in any Bible hocking at TSZ. FMM is the only one these days who does. He got engaged in this discussion because of his interest in the hermeneutics of sacred texts, not because he was appealing to Scripture as authority for any claim he was making.
I understand why you think I’ve been advising Erik not to do that, though quite frankly Erik doesn’t need my advice. He’s quite capable of seeing on his own that “do you or do you not take the Bible to be literally true?” is not as simple as one makes it to be, because “literal truth” is not as simple as we make it out to be.
More to the point, however: in order to pose that question, one needs to have already selected an interpretation of Scripture as consisting of assertions that are assigned truth-value based on correspondence with contingent reality. But while there are evangelical fundamentalists who do read the Bible that way, there aren’t any at TSZ.
Interestingly enough, I just started reading Frederick Will’s Beyond Deduction: Ampliative Aspects of Philosophical Reflection (1988). Have you read it?
Instead of “unique”, there’s something specific to scientific text. I think your points are correct.
1. Scientists use formal systems explicitly, transparently, and methodically.
2. Scientists contribute to each other and provide criticism to each other. There’s a continuity to their methods.
3. There is an academic mechanism of handling both gradual and sudden improvement. There are mutually agreed terms as to what constitutes scientific progress.
This is specific to science. I said it’s not unique. Why did I say so? Because there are specific methods and manners to all other textual traditions and genres too. Each genre serves its specific purpose. You can’t read a science book to your child at night. You have to read a children’s story book. You cannot use a science book to do your shopping. You use a shopping list. The list of your next week’s tasks is not appropriate in a scientific paper presented at a conference. You keep them private in a calendar. And when you feel intellectually burned out, you watch a funny movie instead of reading a science book. Etc.
The thing is, there is a genre to serve every need and purpose. Scripture is the genre that addresses spritual needs. It serves its purpose and it does a good job at it. You simply disagree that spiritual needs exist and you don’t acknowledge that there is any legitimate purpose to scripture. Since the purpose of scripture is multifaceted, it’s easy to disagree. So nevermind.
But maybe the questions are not as straightforward as they look.
I would add Mung to that list.
Kantian Naturalist,
I have Frederick Will’s book on induction, but I haven’t read it. Dunno if you know that he’s George Will’s father. George tells a story about a joke (involving mayonnaise, IIRC) that always cracked his father up, but I can’t remember it as I type this (on the T).
I’ve already addressed your concern about literal reading and asking Erik about it couple of times now, and won’t repeat my earlier remarks–which I believer remain responsive.
So you don’t know the history of mammoth.
Good suggestion, but this presupposes that ice was the main thing, and water was secondary, derived from melting ice. The flood stories suggest the other way round, that water was the main thing, massively pouring from the skies, and ice was secondary, the water froze when it got cold. Are you scientifically settled which way it was? ETA: Either way, water or ice, didn’t it come abruptly enough so as to look like wrath of God?
In stone age, absolutely everything had religious implications. Fate or destiny (including all its implications, such as path of the soul, afflictions of the mind and body, premonition, providence, etc.) has been a well-understood concept up until recently. It’s a very modern thing to refuse to see religious implications.
There are ways of being non-discrete that are different from being a continuum. One can add virtual points to make it a continuum. I sometimes wonder whether quantum wierdness is really about such added virtual points.
Erik,
Thank you for repeating that. Now please answer the question you have been avoiding:
Now, the Bible does say that only eight people survived the flood. Do you believe that to be true in reality? Note that I am not asking about what the text says — that’s very clear. Do you contend, as part of your claim that the flood was an historical event, that in reality those eight people were at one point in time the only living humans on the planet?
(Note that a straightforward answer consists of a single word: “yes” or “no”.)
Neil Rickert,
What is not straightforward about this question I’ve been asking Erik:
Now, the Bible does say that only eight people survived the flood. Do you believe that to be true in reality? Note that I am not asking about what the text says — that’s very clear. Do you contend, as part of your claim that the flood was an historical event, that in reality those eight people were at one point in time the only living humans on the planet?
It’s a yes or no question.
The past is a theory about the present — it’s not as if we can hop into a time machine and go investigate. People can get along quite nicely without having settled on particular beliefs about the past. You are pressing Erik for beliefs that he might not have.
When have I ever said anything like that? Unless that you was directed at the average TSZ anti-theist.
All I’ve said in this thread is that I personally am not interested in the “just the facts ma’am” position that some people (not you) seem to be focusing their participation on.
Fair enough. Any other comment? Was my answer otherwise intelligible?