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.
Erik,
You are indeed obfuscating and weaseling, as petrushka says.
You didn’t give a single straight answer to any of my five questions. What’s up with that?
Here is how I answer them:
1. It was a global flood, so God instructed Noah to build an ark. It was the only way he and his family could survive. Had it been a local flood, the ark wouldn’t have been necessary. They could have simply traveled to a safe place.
2. It was a global flood, so a pair of each kind of animal had to be loaded onto the ark. Any land animal that wasn’t on the ark perished in the flood, as God said it would.
3. God said he wanted to wipe out “all mankind” and “all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it”. He meant what he said, so the flood was global.
4. See above. God wanted to wipe out all but Noah, his family, and the animals on the ark. He sent a global flood, because a local flood wouldn’t do the job.
5. It’s physically impossible for a flood to cover all 16,854 feet of Mt. Ararat and still be a local flood. This flood was global.
6. God’s promise was this:
He was promising never again to bring a cataclysmic global flood.
Yes, the story is wrong. No such global flood ever happened. The story’s not true, but it’s still a pretty interesting myth, don’t you think?
The Bible isn’t the infallible word of God, but you don’t need the flood story to demonstrate that. Look at the rest of the Bible: full of inaccuracies, contradictions, and absurdities. It’s obviously the work of humans, not of an omniGod.
Kantian Naturalist,
Sorry about that, KN. I didn’t realize that you were intending that distinction between those modes of expression as a hope rather than as a description. Should have read more carefully.
No worries. I think I was confused on that point myself in previous comments I made in this thread.
Your insistence on global versus local misses the point of the story. Want to be like literalist fundies? I’m not stopping you. When you insist on it, then you already are it, as far as can be reasonably determined.
The purpose of the flood was to wipe out mankind, except Noah. Do you have any idea how widespread mankind was on the planet at that time? Reasonably, the flood needed to be just that wide and none more. If Noah and the rest in the ark were to survive, the flood had to be necessarily moderate, not total and absolute. To wipe out all mankind was just a part of the story. The other part was to ensure Noah’s survival.
The water didn’t have to cover the entire planet to call the flood global if you so much wish to call it global. If you identify a spot on earth that was not ocean bottom at some point, you can determine that the flood did not cover the entire planet and then you can laugh out those who believe in absolute coverage of every inch. I asked you the relevant question, but you evidently have no answer to it. So you are just weaseling with the text, making geological assumptions from it without researching the geology. The scientific approach would be to research the geology. Get on with it.
Wrong on what point? How do you determine that the flood never happened? As I have pointed out to you, it can be argued that the flood was so cataclysmic that it’s practically ongoing – just look at the extent of oceans on the planet compared to the extent of land. Any comment?
This line of thought presupposes that “ideal democracy” is an ideal over everything else that you mention, but not everybody consents to this and even those who idealise “ideal democracy” have rather disparate ideas about it. Therefore your second point does not hold and nothing further follows.
Erik,
Human artifacts have been found from China to Ireland dating to 5000 years ago, the time I’ve most often heard for the date of the supposed global flood. So it only had to cover that small span of the globe.
Erik,
You insisted that the literal interpretation is true, just like the ‘literalist fundies’ you apparently look down on. Are you having second thoughts?
My question for you, Mr. Inquisitor, is: So what?
Are you making moral judgments again? Are you ever going to address yourself to walto’s questions?
Surely you can quote me on this.
It so happens that the Chinese have their own flood story traditionally dated to 5000 years ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Flood_%28China%29
Since nobody hears what I am saying, namely that the literal interpretation is the least important, this topic has been exhausted.
I find myself quite badly perplexed at this specific response to what you said.
Is your point that not everyone in the world accepts democracy as a political ideal? That’s perfectly clear but not, I think, germane to the point I was making. I was rather making the following argument, no doubt quite badly, so allow me to restate it somewhat better here:
(1) The ideal of democracy involves the idea that everyone who is obliged to abide by public policy should be able to consent to that policy;
(2) In a pluralistic culture, many different metaphysical doctrines — different conceptions of the ultimate significance of our values and purpose of our lives — should peacefully co-exist side-by-side;
(3) If the justification for a public policy is only intelligible to those who accept a specific metaphysical doctrine, then that policy cannot be consented to by those who do not share that doctrine;
(4) therefore, such justifications have no place in debates over public policy.
I’m not taking up the further question as to whether democracy should be an ideal (though of course I am of the opinion that it is). There are, I think, quite good arguments as to why democracy should endorsed as an ideal, though I have no reason to believe that opponents of democracy would be persuaded by those arguments.
Rather, my point here is a conditional: “if democracy + pluralism, then secular public policy”.
It is a further question as to what form religious discourse and practice can take consistent with the commitment to secular public policy. The suggestion I was making is that one possibility is to construe religious discourse in non-assetoric terms, but rather as something more like poetry. There might be rather serious difficulties with that suggestion, and perhaps it is not a good idea after all.
For what it’s worth, I understand your point quite well and I agree with you on this.
My own take is that, while it is plausible that there was some real event that inspired the flood narrative, it doesn’t matter — we can understand what is important to the flood narrative regardless of whether there was a real event that inspired it or not. It is possible that there was. It is possible that there wasn’t, and the authors included it because there are flood narratives in other myths from the ancient Near East.
From my perspective, the point of the flood narrative is that we have a more-or-less “innate” disposition towards violence and cruelty, and that becoming a decent and caring person involves careful regulation over this ineliminable disposition.
And I think that is true.
Erik,
keiths:
Erik:
Of course:
Would you like to withdraw that statement?
Erik,
We hear what you’re saying: to you, the literal interpretation is the least important.
Yet you also said that the literal interpretation was true. That’s what Patrick, petrushka and I disagree with.
How could you say that with a straight face?
Mung,
You say you want to talk about interpretations of scripture. For the third time:
Here’s a passage:
19 They [the waters] rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.
I interpret that to mean that the mountains were underwater. How do you interpret it?
I can defend my interpretation. What is your interpretation? Can you defend it?
@keiths
As you see from my quote, I didn’t simply say the literal interpretation was true. I said there are different kinds of interpretation, all true, but not equally important. And the literal is the least important.
I can say it because it’s standard. For example take a look at the patristic exegesis http://public.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/medieval/exegesis.html
Literal is the same as superficial. That’s why it’s the least important.
Actually, I think I’ve been pretty consistent. I want to talk about your interpretation of whatever it was that I wrote that led you to accuse me of making a false claim.
If you have nothing, please just say so.
You do admit that you accused me of making a false claim, right? I can provide the link to where you made that assertion if you like.
Can you provide a link to the statement where I claimed that you “haven’t offered an argument against it [Christianity]”?
No? Then why not just admit it and retract your false claim.
I didn’t know until now that there was a third volume to this series. So thanks.
Medieval Exegesis: The Four Senses of Scripture, Vol. 3
Erik,
No, but you did say that it is true:
I understand that you consider the literal meaning the least important to your faith, but that ranking doesn’t change your claim about the literal reading.
Let’s make it simple: Do you believe that a global flood as described in the Christian Bible occurred in approximately 2304 BCE?
I see this is not reaching you.
If you understood, you would know how it changes the picture. When the higher meaning dawns, the literal meaning is transcended. Often this is even essential for the correct interpretation. For example none of the parables is supposed to be read literally.
I’ll tell you as soon as you show me your calculations for the date. And how global is “global”? (Note that this word is not in the text.)
I find reading the Flood story as a parable to be unenlightening. What are we to take from it?
Erik,
I got the date from the first creationist page I found in a Google search for the date of the biblical flood. If you think the story happened at a different time, please let me know. I’m trying to understand your claim, after all.
As far as “global” goes, keiths has explained why a literal reading of the text indicates that the story is about a global flood. Rather than get bogged down by that, though, allow me to rephrase my question slightly: Do you believe that the flood as described in the Christian Bible actually occurred? Please note the bolded part — it’s important.
petrushka,
Don’t annoy the dominant male (and, by extension, those who claim to speak for him). I can’t imagine why the priesthood would push such a message.
American folk lore includes the story of George Washington and the cherry tree. And it includes the story of Rip Van Winkle.
Hebrew folk lore includes the story of Noah and the flood, and it includes the story of Jonah and the big fish.
Calculations of the date are external to the story, strictly speaking. I can conclude that you are after a date, not after the literal interpretation of the story. What is it with you and the date?
What exactly is the importance of “Christian Bible”? You are aware that the flood story is in Genesis, Torah, Old Testament, aren’t you? It’s common to Jews, Christians, and even to the Chinese.
Anyway, of course it occurred. The Bible has been found historically reliable. Feel free to disprove it.
Matthew 24:37-38 for example. But yeah, it’s unenlightening to you.
As I was scrolling upwards, scanning a line or two from each comment to orient myself, this is the one which caught my eye. Gotta be Gregory, I thought. Haven’t seen Gregory in a while, but Gregory must be back and poking at … hmm … maybe Elizabeth … or, I’ll guess, KN again.
Ayep.
One more flick of eyes upward and there it is, proof of Gregory whining at Kantian Naturalist. Again. Forever and ever amen.
Dog, Gregory, do you have the self-consciousness to be even a little bit aware of how boring you look? Your petty obsession having jacketed you to the point where an outsider, with just the cue of one sentence, can identify you … Don’t you think you should reform yourself into something better, more important, or at least more interesting?
hotshoe_,
Don’t feed the trolls
Oh, Erik. Come on.
We might also consider the possibility that the literal meaning of a sacred text is factually false but that it has other meanings that are true. It would be severely problematic to endorse a theory of truth according to which factual truth is the only kind of truth.
As I said above, the point of the flood narrative is that we have a more-or-less “innate” disposition towards violence and cruelty, and that becoming a decent and caring person involves careful regulation over this ineliminable disposition.
And I think that is true.
First let’s get the concession that it’s factually ridiculous. Then we can go on from there and consider your “non-factual truths”
Erik,
I might give it a try, if you could provide me a few more details about your claim.
When did this flood supposedly occur?
Did it result in the deaths of every living land-based creature on the entire planet with the exception of the people and animals on the ark?
Well, since the factual ridiculousness of much of Scripture seems so obvious to me as to be beyond dispute, I’d rather discuss what’s actually interesting about it.
Even the parts of the Old Testament that are probably not factually ridiculous, such as its history of the ancient Israelites, are both not best read as factual histories per se but rather as part of the legitimizing ideology of those kingdoms.
Those are not the parts that are most interesting to me; I’d rather talk about the ethical truths expressed in Amos or Micah and how they amount to an indictment of contemporary affluent society.
But if you all want to talk about whether or not any parts of Scripture are factually true or false, I’ll go back to watching from the sidelines.
I don’t want to talk about what is patently obvious either, but while you’re looking for some manner to call the book valuable anyhow, some of its defenders haven”t yet admitted that it’s factually ridiculous.
One thing at a time, KN. First factual falsity, then you can try to rehab it with whatever it is you have in mind.
bingo!!!!
peace
So boring! Can’t we just skip ahead to the good stuff and talk about whether ethical truth is distinct from factual truth?
Umm, not feeding troll, I think, trying for “elevation”
Isn’t that what Greg always tells us to do?
I guess you can skip ahead by explaining why you take religious claims to be ethical claims. (or ‘religious truths’ as tantamount to ethical truths.
I’m not sure there are any such things as “religious truths” but I’d need to consider it at some length. I do think that religious texts can convey ethical truths, though that’s too anodyne a claim to be worth contending for or against.
I dunno. think there are some regulars here who might dispute it.
Do you see how problematic literal reading is? You have all these questions and you literally have to get into digging to solve them. This is a fundamental problem with empiricism in general. There are experts for that, such as archaeologists and geologists, but they are only relevant to the literal meaning of the text.
There are no religious truths but there are ethical truths? In the trivial sense, has the Bible not proven itself reliable in terms of archaeology at least?
Erik,
Yes, which is why I don’t understand why you claim to believe it.
I’m asking about your beliefs. All I have to do is ask you.
So, when did this flood you claim occurred supposedly occur?
Did it result in the deaths of every living land-based creature on the entire planet with the exception of the people and animals on the ark?
Fair enough.
First, this is only relevant to the literal meaning, but literal meaning is the least relevant.
Second, even on literal reading, I don’t have to determine the date of the flood, insofar as the means to establish it are extratextual. There are experts of extratextual fields for that.
The way I read it, the purpose of the flood was to wipe out mankind, while animals were more like collateral damage. The flood had to cover the area where mankind was residing. Can you tell from the text how far and wide from Eden people had gone?
No, but I can tell you that its an example of human extension in which (origin) stories count across vast generations. 😉
‘Atheist literalists’ appear to be a very strange people indeed fighting shadows of their own making. Thanks for showing this through your engagement with them here.
I didn’t assert categorically that there are no religious truths. I said that I’m not sure that there are religious truths, in the same sense that there are ethical truths or mathematical truths (whatever sense that turns out to be!).
Maybe at least some sacred texts (e.g. the Bible, the Tao Te Ching, the Qu’ran, the Bhagavad Gita, etc.) do convey distinctively religious truths, and maybe the truths that they do convey are ethical truths presented in metaphors, symbols, and images, and maybe there’s no way of distinguishing between those two cases.
I use all these “maybes” because I do not know. I’m trying to keep an open mind.
Biblical archaeology is not my forte, but my rough sense is that the Bible (or at least the Old Testament — the New Testament might be better, for all I know) is about as reliable on archaeology as the Iliad is — which is to say, more reliable than would be expected of a piece of mere fantasy.
Just as archaeologists were able to use the Iliad as a guide to finding the ruins of Troy, so too there are events and places in the Old and New Testaments that have been confirmed by archaeologists.
But since that doesn’t mean that the Biblical descriptions of those events are completely accurate, the question is, what does one mean by “reliable”?
Moved a couple of comments to Guano.
Literal reading became “least relevant” only when literal reading became untenable. somewhere between 1800 and 1900 for most educated people.
I’m still waiting for someone to provide the uplifting meaning of the flood story, taken as a parable.
Oh, Alan. I’m not here to persuade you. You’ve already made your ‘anti-religious’ decision. You don’t want to embody ‘religious language’ and nobody and nothing is going to make you change your mind.
I can agree that there are religious truths, and in much the same way that there are mathematical truths.
Mathematical truths purport to be factual statements about platonic objects. As a fictionalist, I don’t agree that there are platonic objects. But I see mathematical truths as really disguised truths about behavior (or about mathematical method). They are truths about consequences of counting (arithmetic) or truths about consequences of measuring (geometry and analysis). Likewise, religious truths are disguised truths about behavior within the religious community, and some of those truths (the ethical truths) extend to behavior outside the community.