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.
It does not seem to me that you are ‘trying to understand’. Erik speaks a language you (and most here) simply and stubbornly REFUSE to learn. Learn it, and you’ll understand quite easily and quickly…and more deeply than the historicist approach you are taking now.
No doubt you think you are just being an innocent atheist. Ask your same questions again for the 500th time and see what response you get. OR, and that’s a big OR, Patrick, you could try a different approach. Is it even possible? We’ve heard your same questions ad nauseam. What you don’t understand is that a ‘spiritual reading’ of scripture is beyond your current realm of curiosity or capacity.
3 admins/mods. 3 atheists. That’s TAMSZ! 😉
” Erik speaks a language you (and most here) simply and stubbornly REFUSE to learn.”
To be generous, I suppose this could be called the language of make-believe. There are less generous terms for it. But I also suppose when one makes claims known not to be true, one can only call others names when one is challenged to support them.
Even the most “spiritual reading” is hard pressed to find honesty hidden in Gregory’s post.
1. I live in New England.
2. I know you disagree with me regarding my approach to site moderation. I just point to the result here. It’s ok, but it could be considerably better, IMHO. I don’t think the best response to bad speech has ever been good speech, but that’s an empirical question and I could be wrong. I’d like to know the evidence you have for your view, though.
3. I agree with you that it would be kind of nice to have an “ignore” function. The site (as a whole) might still be sort of awful, but the version most of us would see would be OK–because we’d each edit it into a liveable place (for us).
It’s weird to have to depend on blinders of that kind, though. I look at this place as a sort of commons: it’s of great value, but only if it is not abused. As you say, the rules don’t stop the abuse (here or anywhere, actually). To keep a place like this nice, you have to have only decent people who care about the value of a civilized common. As the saying goes, it only takes one rotten apple to make a pile of apples all crappy.
C’mon Patrick, with your pretend ‘justice,’ now jump on in and wag your little mod/admin finger at your fellow atheist, saying “post, not poster” 😉 I dare you.
Gregory,
You are mistaken. I’ve been repeatedly asking for clarification so that I can understand exactly what it is Erik is claiming.
Here is what Erik claimed:
He followed this up with:
He has since reiterated that position several more times.
So tell me, Gregory, what language in Erik’s claim am I refusing to learn? He is making an assertion about an historical fact. Because of that he has an obligation under the goals of this site (and of rational discourse) to clarify his meaning and, once that meaning is clarified, support his claim with evidence.
Two reasons. First, that’s not true. Second, Erik’s claim is not about a spiritual reading of anything. It is a claim about a supposedly historical event. He should explain what he means by answering my simple questions. You should stop defending his refusal to do so — it calls your character into question.
Gregory,
Are you formally complaining about walto’s comments? If so, I will move them to Guano.
walto — Please explain exactly why Gregory’s behavior is that of a nitwit rather than simply calling him names.
I stand by my remark. You can move my posts to guano if you want to.
The truth will out even from there!
Funny, then, that Erik is convinced that there is a “historical” answer. Erik said so himself – that something (reported as the Flood tale in the bible) did happen.
But if – as Gregory says – Erik doesn’t know what that something was, then why on Earth would he imagine that something bible-floodish did happen in real history?
We all can figure the answer to that. But it’s not a very flattering answer either to Erik’s ignorance nor to Gregory’s stupid defense of ignorance just because it happens to be on his team’s side.
Gregory completely ignores the historical, archeological, biological, and physical evidence that no flood has ever occurred within human history which is bible-floodish in scope, not even close. Of course Gregory doesn’t chastise his putative ally Erik for backwoods ignorance.
And Gregory also completely ignores the fact that there is no spiritual reading to be drawn from the bible Flood story, unless you count “don’t diss the tyrant god, it will destroy every innocent animal and plant if humans don’t bow to it the way it demands” as a spiritual lesson.
Unless, maybe, Gregory’s got a better idea?
No? I thought not.
Good good. Let’s go over it very carefully.
First things first. It’s my claim we are talking about. Is this reaching you? In order to understand it, you must not attach anything extraneous to it. Drop your presuppositions.
Now, what part of “Anyway, of course it [the biblical flood] occurred. The Bible has been found historically reliable.” do you not understand?
Erik,
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?
Let’s try again. The claim is “Anyway, of course it [the biblical flood] occurred. The Bible has been found historically reliable.” Which part of the claim do you not understand?
Erik,
I don’t understand when exactly you are claiming that this supposed historical event occurred. When did the flood you claim happened occur?
I don’t understand if you are explicitly claiming that the flood was global as described in the Bible. Was the flood global? That is, did it cover all the planet simultaneously as described in the Bible?
I don’t understand if you are explicitly claiming that, as described in the Bible, only the people on the Ark survived this flood you claimed happened. Immediately after the flood were there only eight people alive on the entire planet?
Oh, for fuck’s sake, Erik.
🙂 🙂 🙂
when does the Bible say
I don’t think the Bible, especially the OT talks a lot about planets or globes
Where does the Bible mention a planet?
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
I am asking about Erik’s claim, not about biblical stories. I want to know what he is saying actually happened.
Now do go back to evading supporting your own claims.
I dunno — I think it could be interesting if fifthmonarchyman actually spelled out what god has revealed to him as the truth about Noah’s flood.
Maybe god told him it covered only the plains of the Tigris/Euphrates, but to the goatherders of that time, that was the whole “earth” and when they said “waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits” they meant waters covered the little hummocks and dunes and whatever high-points of dirt they thought were “mountains” in their local language.
Whaddya say, fifthmonarchyman? Take a flyer on revealing your specific beliefs about the so-called Flood? Worried you’ll look like as much of a backwoods hick as Erik? Or confident that you can (finally!!) explain it all in a way that’s reasonable?
Look, my aim is to try to find some common ground here, despite the fact that you are an ignorant (re your “I don’t understand” and “I want to understand…”) troll (re your weeks-long repetitive bullying). Common ground is evidently not your aim, but it is mine, and I will stick to it.
So, what are the specifics of our lack of common ground? Let’s consider the following hypothetical situation.
The topic is the soul. One participant (materialist) asks the other (idealist), “Where is the soul located? How big and how heavy is it? What effects does it cause?”
From the idealist’s point of view, the questions themselves are impossible. The questions are possible only given physicalist presuppositions, namely material properties like size and weight, but the soul is immaterial. So this would be a dead end from the get-go.
Our difference is not as sharp as this, but fairly close to it. We have no common ground. Our dialogue has been impeded because you have not been willing to identify some common ground. Here is my attempt yet again.
1) When? I have said that the text is multi-layered. This means that it permits multiple interpretations (levels of interpretation from literal to spiritual or esoteric). It also means that the events described refer to multiple events at once, i.e. it’s about multiple historical events even on the literal level. Looking at the tradition of interpretation* of the flood story, both meanings of “multi-layered” hold. Which means the date depends on which specific layer we are considering.
On the spiritual level, the question about the date is inapplicable. And I have said that the spiritual level has priority over literal. This point also bears out in the tradition of scriptural exegesis.
2) Global? This depends on what layer we are considering. According to Jewish traditional exegesis, the flood story is about multiple events (i.e. the text contains multiple layers of narrative). The layer specifically concerning the Hebrew guy called Noah (which is the layer you are evidently most interested in, as determined from the way you have been formulating your questions), the flood was NOT global. Source: Midrash Rabbah.
3) After the flood, only eight people on the entire planet? According to Jewish traditional exegesis, a civilization or an era ended cataclysmically, not human species. Other flood stories are similar. Chinese flood stories leave predominantly local impression, while Indian version is multi-layered and at its broadest refers to a change of planetary/cosmic cycles (not the same thing as global flood, but adequately described in the same vocabulary).
When I made a point about the global flood (which is how you read the flood story of Genesis, even though Rabbinical Jews don’t read it this way), I wanted to see on what evidence you would reject it. No evidence has been forthcoming from you. And this is the most frustrating part of our exchange – I am doing all the work of explaining my position while you are doing none to explain yours. One fool can ask more questions than seven wise men can answer. But I am just one and I don’t consider myself wise, talking so long to a fool.
Now, I have given every bit of this information earlier. What part of it is still unclear to you?
* Tradition of interpretation because I refuse to give you my personal interpretation. I refuse to give you my personal interpretation due to our lack of common ground and due to your hostility.
this is progress. you refuse to answer the questions you know quite well that he’s been asking. you could have forestalled several hundred repetitive posts if you’d been honest about this matter a month or two ago.
Amen, brother, amen.
Erik:
“When I made a point about the global flood (which is how you read the flood story of Genesis, even though Rabbinical Jews don’t read it this way), I wanted to see on what evidence you would reject it. No evidence has been forthcoming from you. And this is the most frustrating part of our exchange – I am doing all the work of explaining my position while you are doing none to explain yours. One fool can ask more questions than seven wise men can answer. But I am just one and I don’t consider myself wise, talking so long to a fool”
Any flood remotely resembling what you claim was a natural, historical event would have left an enormous amount of evidence, of a wide variety. Evangelical geologists and others in fact accepted your claim at face value, but THEY set out to find physical indications of it, which should be pretty obvious everywhere. They found none. Even interpreting the tale as an embellishment of a local event would have meant evidence on the ground. It ain’t there.
For this reason (not just lack of evidence for such a flood, but ubiquitous evidence that would have been impossible if there had been such a flood), the notion of such a flood as a natural history event has been discarded by all but those for whom belief trumps evidence.
However, as a moral, theological, or allegorical tale, the flood story is valuable and informative. Claiming that the meaning of the tale rests on its historical accuracy is to misunderstand the tale to the point where it has LOST any meaning.
So are you making the theological claim of a moral cautionary tale, or are you making the claim that geologists (even evangelical geologists) are all idiots and have been for well over a century?
And questions aren’t arguments. keiths.
Erik,
As I’ve made very clear in this thread, I am not asking about the text. I am asking specifically about your claim:
That is a positive claim on your part about a supposedly historical event in the real world. My question about your claim is “When did the flood you claim happened occur?” If you aren’t claiming that this event is actually historical, you may respond “Never.” If you are claiming that this event is actually historical, you may answer with a date or reasonable date range for when you are claiming it occurred.
I am not asking about texts or layers. I am asking about your specific claim that “Anyway, of course it [the biblical flood] occurred. The Bible has been found historically reliable.” Was the flood global? That is, did it cover all the planet simultaneously as described in the Bible? You may answer “Yes”, “No, it only covered some areas” (and clearly specify those areas, or “No, it wasn’t an actual historical event.”
As I’ve made painfully clear repeatedly, I am not asking about “Jewish traditional exegesis”, I am asking about your specific claim that “Anyway, of course it [the biblical flood] occurred. The Bible has been found historically reliable.” Immediately after the flood were there only eight people alive on the entire planet? You may answer “Yes”, “No, the flood was not global in scope and humans outside the area specified above were not affected”, or “No, it wasn’t an actual historical event.”
This is not information, it is yet another transparent attempt to avoid clarifying your actual claim. Please answer the questions about your claim directly without this pathetic evasion.
Erik,
If you refuse to clarify your claim, you must retract it. If you refuse to do either, you shouldn’t be participating here.
Are these the new rules you’ve been pushing for?
Frankly, I don’t think it’s a workable idea. People will just get into endless arguments over whether or not a claim was really clarified or not or whether it was really retracted or not or whether someone is refusing or not.
Mung,
I’m not suggesting a new rule to ban people for behaving badly. I am suggesting that we should be able to point out bad faith behavior when there is clear evidence for it.
Lizzie’s goals for this site are:
Erik is explicitly refusing to clarify his claim:
He is acting in direct opposition to the goals of this site. If he refuses to change his behavior, he is being dishonorable by participating here.
Patrick:
I think you and Erik have made it clear by now. He can either give a truthful answer, or be true to a religious faith that prohibits this. Unable to admit to being untrue in either sense, he weasels and evades.
Lizzie’s goals for this site, admirable as most of us may find them, are simply incompatible with the “religious worldview”. She hopes for honesty and integrity, so what do you expect, really?
Well Patrick, if I haven’t already said so I’ll say it now. I am in general agreement with you that people should be able to say whatever they like with as few rules as possible.
The job of “moderator” is impossible in this environment. I know that’s a sentiment I’ve expressed before. An ignore function would be nice, but I’m learning to apply the petrushka method. Just scroll on past.
Meanwhile, I wonder if we are ever going to see the followup keiths post on moderation. Maybe he’s just afraid to say what he believes.
Here’s my list:
Banning:
1. No porn or links to porn.
2. No doxxing.
Moderation:
Spam (Your posts in this thread would go into moderation under this rule.)
Hope you and your family had an enjoyable Thanksgiving.
Odd though that Lizzie quotes Scripture in the banner of this site. I guess you could be mistaken, Flint.
Here it is for you in case you missed it:
I bet Patrick doesn’t think he’s mistaken though. 😉
Mung,
When you run away from my questions, the conversation never gets off the ground.
Be brave, Mung.
As far as I know, that is quoted from Oliver Cromwell.
Thanks Neil. Maybe one day I’ll delve into whether it has a Scriptural basis.
I’m thinking of purchasing the latest version of my favorite Bible software. I am four versions behind and don’t have it installed on my current computers.
BibleWorks
I know how people here just love to discuss Scripture.
So?
It’s your argument. Or should I say, your lack of argument.
Are you now admitting that your accusation that I made a false claim against you has no basis in fact? It concerned whether or not you were making an actual argument, right?
You and Patrick both seem to think that if you ask a series of questions that you have put forth an argument. Is that really what you think?
By the way, I’m still waiting to see your argument. If you have one.
Mung, today:
Neil:
LOL. On September 2nd:
keiths:
Mung:
For Christ’s sake, where are the competent Christians?
Or he could have been straightforward about his position and aims, instead of whatever he is…
Can you be clear what specifically ain’t there? Fossils in mountains ain’t there? What else?
What a fool. You are deliberately running away from any common ground where the answer would be possible.
Let’s try again. The claim is “Anyway, of course it [the biblical flood] occurred. The Bible has been found historically reliable.” Which part of the claim do you not understand?
Or let’s try this way. When you say “clarify your claim” what do you mean?
I have given you the traditional exegesis of the text. It should be better than any ordinary individual interpretation. Stop your threats and address it.
ETA: I know now. The aim of Mr “I don’t understand” is to eat my nerves away. And Mr “I don’t see that at all” will not do anything about it. Seek advice from the lady, dudes.
Flint,
I actually, genuinely expected some honesty and integrity from other participants here. I’d like to understand Erik’s claim.
I’ll go sit in the corner until the optimism wears off.
Mung,
I strongly disagree. I am not spamming, I am emphasizing Erik’s refusal to either answer questions about his claim or retract it. Erik’s behavior is utterly unacceptable according to the goals of this site. I’m not letting this one slide.
Mung,
If you think I’m mistaken, explain why, given the goals of this site, I shouldn’t be calling Erik out on his behavior.
Erik,
I have been straightforward about my aims from the beginning. I want to understand this claim that you made:
In order to understand it, I’ve asked three simple 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?
Please answer these questions directly and clearly or retract your claim. You have no other honest options.
Erik,
That depends on the specifics of your claim.
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?
Answer these and we can discuss the consequences of your claim.
Erik,
Stop playing games. You know exactly what I mean, as evidenced by this comment of yours:
I’m not interested in the text at this point. I’m interested in understanding exactly what it is you are claiming when you say:
Answer these simple questions or retract your claim:
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?
If you refuse to do either, you are acting in direct opposition to the goals of this site and should stop participating here.
Is the spam filter of this site broken, or are ‘admins’ allowed to bypass it?
Oh, you poor fool.
Every christian geologist knows there are “fossils in mountains” — and assuming that you mean, as you fail to specify here, marine-shell fossils that would appear at first glance to support the idea of having been washed up by a mountaintop-covering flood ….
then you’re nothing but a fool. Sorry you’ve been tricked by the pastors or other sources you trusted. They’ve led you astray, but more fool you to believe the christian preachers and philologists rather than the christian geologists.
If nothing else, the very fact they’re fossils (rather than just old shells laying around) should be enough for any rational person to be sure they aren’t a result of a flood within the human history timeline. For example, the fossils on Everest – which you mentioned once before as if they supported your crazed bible history – are at last 65 million years old, some are up to 400 million years old.
So, Erik, where do you think there are beds of marine shells tossed up onto land several thousand years ago in some mystery not-quite-global but bible-historical Flood? Do you think they exist somewhere? IF not, then you agree with the christian geologists starting three hundred years ago who first realized there is no Flood evidence where they expected (and hoped) to find it.
It wouldn’t kill you to admit you’re wrong. It might be a bit of a rough patch for your faith, but every reasonable christian on the planet admits there was no Noah’s Flood in real history. Feel free to join your brethren in rationality!
The part where you ridiculously think because some parts of the Bible are historically accurate that all the stories including Genesis must be so too.
Here is about the best I can do:
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/p82.htm
You may find this long essay worth reading. If nothing else, it will answer the question you ask here, and perhaps many others.
If I recall correction, Sherlock Holmes’ address and 221b Baker Street actually exists.
Yep. Scotland Yard really exists too, as do the Reichenbach Falls. Holmes, Watson, and Moriarty, not so much so.
Hmm, so you presuppose that I have no honesty or integrity? And this squares with good faith how? And this is on topic how?
And your questions are on topic exactly how?
If you want to understand my claim, then you would not keep repeating questions based on your own presuppositions, which include the assumption that I have no honesty and integrity, i.e. you self-admittedly have outright malicious intent.
Instead, you would examine my presuppositions, which I have amply explained.
But you are not doing that. Therefore you are demonstrably not trying to understand my claim. Instead, you are enforcing, from the position of power, your malicious intent.
Get yourself back in order so perhaps we can discuss the actual topic.