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.
Anecdote: when I taught the Old Testament in a Great Books course (many years ago, as a TA in grad school), one of the hardest things to do was to get the students actually reading the text closely enough to notice such things as the different order of events in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, or that the serpent in the Garden is not the Devil (i.e. the text doesn’t actually say so!). Often it was the self-styled “Christians” who were so sure that they already knew what it said that they didn’t actually read it!
Are you asking Erik what the text really says (the true meaning of the text), or whether the true meaning of the text corresponds to the past event in the actual world?
One of the things that this discussion has brought forth is that Erik is using the word “literal” in the first sense and everyone else is using the word “literal” in the second sense.
That was my understanding of Erik’s position, once he had explained that to me. Hence my avoidance of the word “literal”, which has multiple meanings. I am only interested in historical accuracy.
Thus I retired from the field, satisfied, when Erik made it clear he was talking about textual accuracy, not historical accuracy. However, his paragraph about Herodotus seems to be making claims about historical accuracy, given his citation of archeological confirmation.
ETA: to answer your question: the latter
So, people looked at fossils and allowed imagination to fly? I think I have heard this theory before. It might explain some of Homer, but not all. Same for Herodotus.
To approach ancient scriptures like folklore is a plausible approach by the way, perhaps the best if you don’t want to believe it any deeper. But on every “scientific” explanation there remain things that cannot be explained away.
Yes, that’s what it says.
Not what I asked.
DNA_Jock,
I myself think that when we’re trying to talk about archaeological evidence for the events narrated in the Bible, it depends on which parts of the Bible we’re talking about.
The history of the ancient Israelite kingdoms that was written by the inhabitants of those kingdoms — roughly beginning with First Samuel — could be as well confirmed as Herodotus (standard caveats apply). That is to say, there is little room for reasonable doubt that David and Solomon actually existed, but some room for doubt as to whether they did everything that the text says that they did.
On the other hand, I would treat the stories in Genesis and Exodus as basically being like the myths of Homer.
We also have to ask, what is the purpose of these texts?
Richard Elliot Friedmann, the only Biblical scholar I myself have read, argues that much of the Old Testament was written as the legitimizing ideology of the kingdom of Israel, and that the tensions within the text come about as a result of a political conflict between the priesthood, the advocates of the northern kingdom, and the advocates of the southern kingdom in the years following Solomon’s death.
For example, he argues that the southern kingdom the Holy of the Holies contained two golden cherubim; when the northern kingdom built their own temple, they made two golden bulls. So the story of the Golden Calf in Exodus is a bit of anti-northern political propaganda being waged by someone from the south.
It’s also not clear if all the texts compiled into the Bible really have the same purpose. The history of ancient Israel has a complicated set of purposes; so too does Psalms, Proverbs, the Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, and the Prophets. I know of one Biblical scholar who argues that the Book of Jonah was written as a comedic parody of prophetic literature.
It’s complicated!
I meant that if we are to consider the archeological data, that’s how it fares, comparatively. Should it fare any better? Should all historical texts be backed up with archeological data? Is it not sometimes permitted that the genre settles it? E.g. ancient accounting documents do not require that you find the exact same amount of money and goods as mentioned there, do they? You simply believe the content in its own right. At other times you find nothing archeologically because we might be misreading the document. At other times the author could be pulling our leg (how do you tell this, btw?) and at other times you simply don’t know why there are no archeological traces.
I wasn’t suggesting that approaching it as folklore is the best way of proceeding.
The way I see it, the experience of transcendence is a genuine dimension of human phenomenology. (Gregory and I will argue till the end of time about whether transcendence is “vertical” or “horizontal”.) The authors of the Hebrew Bible had some genuine experience of awe, grandeur, wonder, and transcendence. And they tried to make sense of that experience. In doing so they relied on the conceptual framework available to them, which was similar to the conceptual frameworks of other ancient Near Eastern cultures around 2000-1500 BC. So on that view, the folklore approach is not entirely misleading, but it doesn’t exhaust the significance of Scripture, either.
But that is not to say that anyone else will be happy with my pantheistic version of horizontal transcendence! 🙂
So now what is the expression “literally true” supposed to mean, exactly? I’m totally confused at this point.
Also, I’m not sure whether I should direct this to Erik, who said the Bible is literally (as well as figuratively and esoterically) true, or to his chief interpreter/defense attorney (or even to Gregory, his acolyte.
So I guess anybody may answer. But please use small words for my pathetic, philosophist noggin. (I will deduct points big time if the word ‘hermaneutic’ or any cognate term appears,)
Nice weasel! If you don’t mind me asking, did you cook that response up on your own or were you acting on advice of counsel?
What about “dialectics”, “phenomenological”, or “genealogical”? Can I use any of those? All of them? Please?
At a first pass, “literally true” means “true, but not a figure of speech, metaphor, or poetic license”.
At a second pass, the question, “but is that literally true?” arises within the activity of interpretation when we are suddenly unsure how to map someone else’s meanings onto our own beliefs. The usually smooth and unproblematic process of communication has suddenly broken down, and we go “up” a level in communication in order to re-establish it, and the question “but is that literally true?” is one way in which we do that.
So the pragmatics of the concept of “literal truth” relate to its function in resolving breakdown in communication.
I don’t really know what it means to say that a text is “literally true”.
I would prefer to say that whether a text is descriptively or factually true is itself usually not difficult to resolve. No one asks if the Iliad is literally true, but one might legitimately ask how accurate Thucydides is. And there’s room for debate there. But one can teach the Funeral Oration or the Melian Dialogue without worrying too much whether Thucydides took liberties with his description of the Peloponnesian War.
Kantian Naturalist,
I appreciate your comments regarding the US context of biblical literalism.
I must disagree with this, though:
Erik has stated that the biblical flood really happened. That’s not a comment on the text, it’s a claim about reality.
Erik,
That’s still “pure bullshit”. The Bible gives enough information for you to give an estimate within 5000 years or so. The fact that you continue to refuse to do so simply demonstrates that you are unwilling to support your claim that the flood actually happened. Without details it is vacuous.
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 fun to watch theists go all PoMo.
I’m not completely clear as to what Erik has stated.
Let’s put it this way: clearly there’s a difference between
(1) The Flood story in Genesis is an accurate description of some event that happened in the actual past;
(2) At some point in the actual past, something happened that inspired the story of the Flood, the Flood is not a complete fabrication, and the people who wrote the story probably believed that they were describing a real event.
I took Erik to be asserting (2), not (1). But he is free to amend my (2) as he wishes to convey his own position.
walto,
I think we’re going to have to work through de dicto and de re ascriptions again.
Kantian Naturalist,
I’ve quoted his claim a few times now:
That looks like your (1) to me. There are no caveats or conditions in his claim. He’s clearly (literally, if you will) saying that the biblical flood was an historical event.
Time out for a pop quiz. Do any of our theist posters think it is fair and reasonable to say that historical accuracy is unimportant in scripture? That it could all be a kind of historical fiction?
With allusions to actual people, places and wars, but with the detais filled in by novelists?
If not, what is the standard?
Fair for Mormon scripture.
With the current level of scientific verification for the Bible, quite unfair.
Why?
Are you saying that Joseph Smith didn’t exist?
Mormon scripture is not about Joseph Smith. It’s by Joseph Smith.
I’d say so far the advantage goes to Mormonism. Feel free to say why not.
There. “For scriptural purposes” in Jewish culture means that the completed text becomes applicable as history of the patriarchs, folklore, a moral lesson, and some more spiritual/ritualistic stuff that you don’t believe in, but that people really cannot do without, if they are to stand as civilisation. Scripture is the most complicated and synthetic genre, toughest to approach and relate to.
On rules of philological textual analysis, you cannot properly talk about historical accuracy or “literal trueness” without identifying the genre first. A history book can be measured in terms of historical accuracy; this is simple. A scripture, such as the Bible, may correspond to history very well, but those parts that don’t – well, history was not the (sole) purpose of the text. It doesn’t mean it’s not accurate or true. It means you are only capable of reading it like a history book and you miss out on the rest of the meaning – provided that scripture is really the genre.
Nephites, Lamanites, Jaredites, etc. archaeologically verified in America? Their cultures with all the metallurgy, cities, elephants, donkeys, and battles of millions at Hill Cumorah, NY, attested?
On my assessment, the advantage goes to Odyssey.
You sound like someone obsessed with reading the Book of Mormon as a history book and missing out on the rest of the meaning.
But let me see if I am reading you correctly.
It is your opinion that the testimony of contemporary witnesses — named people who signed testaments — is outweighed by secular archaeological evidence.
There’s a feature in web design called graceful degradation. Scripture as genre has the same feature. When you miss out on the spiritual meaning, you can read it as history, folklore, or moral lessons.
Mormon scripture lacks this feature. It doesn’t read like history. It also doesn’t provide sound moral lessons. And its spirituality (teachings about soul etc.) is flawed. The assessment about its historical quality requires that you know history. Similarly, the latter assessments require you to be competent in morality and spirituality.
Odyssey is better, I say.
Oh, nice riposte!
I bet you’re a huge fan of ‘consensus’ science.
And I’m betting that you know even less about Muslim exegesis than you know about Jewish and Christian exegesis. So why even bring Muslims into the conversation?
As you say.
That’s almost like asking what is their genre. 🙂
It’s simple! Just read it literally.
No. And that thesis probably doesn’t even make sense.
It depends.
For the record, the Mormons I have met have been universally nice, honest people. I can’t say that for every tribe. Not even Quakers. The meanest person I’ve met was a Quaker.
I’m only interested in religion as it affects me as a result of some sort of political activity. Be it trying to influence legislation, public policy, or whether I live or die.
I mention Islam because I frequent sites that discuss evolution, and Muslims by and large reject evolution. (There are always exceptions). But so do Orthodox Jews. And we know about fundamentalist Christians.
I would guess that Muslims represent the largest community of evolution rejectors.
I’m also guessing that science denial has something to do with how people read scripture and whether they read scripture as literal, in the sense of providing actual history, as opposed to allegorical history.
Mung,
Aww, you were doing so well before OldMung took over the keyboard and deleted all the context, turning your comment into a quote mine.
petrushka,
You met Nixon!?
Patrick, you’re either interpreting the text or you are not. Make up your mind.
You can, of course, retreat to claiming that you are not engaged in interpretation, in which case we’ve made absolutely no progress.
Yes, you are.
And you admit you are.
IOW, you’ve just contradicted yourself, and you know it. Therefore the dodge into “OldMung” BS.
What’s more, you admit you’re bringing to the table a certain definition or meaning of what it means for a “reading” of the text to be literal. And that’s the exact point of contention. NewMung is just as capable of OldMung at identifying question-begging.
Meanwhile, Erik and I still await your defense of your literal interpretation.
Perhaps a call to Ken Ham is in order.
The principle danger of Bible study is not that we will be mystified by the text, but that we will think we understand the text in the very act of radically misreading it.
– Mark P. Shea. Making Senses Out of Scripture
And you’re not even capable of self-moderation, as I have repeatedly emphasized.
So on what basis do you moderate the posts of others? Hypocrisy?
Also, haven’t you already confessed that you are not a moral realist and that you are therefore just emoting when you express moral outrage?
You’re just one mass of self-contradiction after another. Why not do something about that, instead of launching invective at others who merely expose your hypocrisy?
Objection 1. It seems that in Holy Writ a word cannot have several senses, historical or literal, allegorical, tropological or moral, and anagogical. For many different senses in one text produce confusion and deception and destroy all force of argument. Hence no argument, but only fallacies, can be deduced from a multiplicity of propositions. But Holy Writ ought to be able to state the truth without any fallacy. Therefore in it there cannot be several senses to a word.
Objection 2. Further, Augustine says (De util. cred. iii) that “the Old Testament has a fourfold division as to history, etiology, analogy and allegory.” Now these four seem altogether different from the four divisions mentioned in the first objection. Therefore it does not seem fitting to explain the same word of Holy Writ according to the four different senses mentioned above.
Objection 3. Further, besides these senses, there is the parabolical, which is not one of these four.
On the contrary, Gregory says (Moral. xx, 1): “Holy Writ by the manner of its speech transcends every science, because in one and the same sentence, while it describes a fact, it reveals a mystery.”
Article 10. Whether in Holy Scripture a word may have several senses?
For certain values of “fun”.
Mung,
Emotivism is not the only alternative to moral realism.
As they say on reddit, mildly interesting.
I thought the same thing. I hoped he would figure it out himself that he was asking for the genre. The difficult thing is that scripture is a complex genre. It lends itself to all sorts of purposes, where religious and spiritual purposes are the invariable aspect.
What other alternatives are there? Relativism and nihilism? Some more?
You could say that theories are a type of texts/stories.
Correct, except that I learned about PSR long afterwards. Until then I thought what the continuum in the continuum theories must be like. Continuum theory seemed to me a superior choice over atomism since basic school.
Good we got this finally out of the way.
You see, if instead of taking the text at its own merit you are out on a hunt to disprove it by absence of evidence, you can end up with anything. Because, what does absence of evidence say? Nothing, that’s what it says. Before looking for (absence of) evidence, you should ask yourself what kind of evidence you are justified to expect. This is determined, for one, by the genre of the text.
Meanwhile, you sidestepped the extratextual evidence for the flood that I have cited. It may be meagre to your taste but, looking at the genre, I say we have more than expected.
Erik,
Yes, it clearly says that only eight people on the whole planet survived the flood.
I notice that you carefully elided the rest of my comment. Allow me to repeat my question. 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?
Please answer directly for once.
Mung,
As a rule I don’t, unless there is a complaint or the comment is pure invective.
However, since my judgement of you seems to have hurt your feelings, I’ve moved that comment to Guano.
The rule about assuming good faith doesn’t mean that one must give up their critical faculties. When someone takes a single sentence from another’s comment and uses it in an attempt to portray the original commenter as saying the opposite of what the comment as a whole said, the very definition of quote mining, there is nothing in the rules against calling out that behavior. Note that I’m talking about behavior, not your character or lack thereof.
If it bothers you so to have your behavior characterized as dishonest, stop behaving dishonestly.
Wiki has a useful ontology:
Cognitivist theories
— Realism
——Naturalism
——non-naturalism
—Subjectivism
—— Relative to society
—— Relative to individual
—— Ideal observer
—— Divine command
—Error Theory
Non-cognitivist
—Emotivism
—Quasi Realism
—Universal prescriptivism