One of the aspects of magic discussed is that of its normativity - magic as foreign/illegitimate religion. The high priests of science have cast out all the demons? Then why are we not in heaven already? — unenlightened

I do think he's on to something in identifying "magic" as a prerogative term, where practioners are seen as deviant, yet practtioners of authentic religious rites are seen as holy. Interesting too is that magic isn't denied as folly by its opponents, but is seen as dangerous. That is, magical spells should be avoided because they summon evil spirits, not because they are useless mutterings to powerless entities.

For example, Exodus, chapter 7, Pharoah's magicians replicate God's miracles of creating a snake from a staff and turning water to blood, but, importantly, the magicians powers in chapter 8 are then shown not as powerful as God's. And we read on to learn of the great suffering brought to the Egyptians.

Magic then becomes the way good is distinguished from evil, but it also suggests that any temporary benefit derived from magic will eventually cause great suffering due to its evil origin.

All this seems to be a critical element of Western mythology.

Using podcasts uses up most of my mobile data allowance and I don't enjoy podcasts. — Jack Cummins

Data allowance? Is that still a thing?

BTW, if the quality of references is wanting, couldn't find better ones for this post on a whim. But may I be fact-checked if needed. — javra

Here is what I found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Egypt#Female_genital_mutilation

It seems ancient Egyptian women fared better than current day ones, with a report of 87% of women there undergoing female genital mutilation currently.

Have we forgotten paternalism? Coming from the word "father", paternalism actually wants to limit the freedom of the individual to protect them from themselves! One can make an argument that the road to hell is paved with good intention. Historically, men would not hesitate to commit unethical actions to preserve society and show what the greater good is. — L'éléphant

I'm not committing to the greater validity of an ethical theory based upon paternalism, I'm just saying that there is just one answer to the question of "Is act X moral?," without regard to whether a male (or female) believes it to be so.

If a male's interpretation of protection is to limit the autonomy of a woman and treat her as a less capable class, then his act is immoral. I'm not suggesting we've gotten it right in terms of figuring out the moral from the immoral. I'm only suggesting that there is just one answer to the question of what is right.

You don't think that the much lower rate of men wanting/filing for divorce has something to do with the primitive behavior of males as protectors in the wild? — L'éléphant

I think there are a myriad of reasons couples divorce. The divorce could be the result of the woman no longer needing the man in the traditional sense, as in, if the marriage were formed on the basis of providing financial stability for the woman while she was raising children, but now the children are grown and the woman is otherwise financially secure.

But there are other possibilities besides that. It might be that men are unfaithful at higher rates and that destroys marriages.

It might also be that women are able to seek emotional connections with their female friends and don't require that in a marriage as a man might, who may be unable to emotively connect with other men.

It may also be that women are less willing to endure a bad marriage than men, especially if the man deprioritizes the significance of the marriage and prioritizes work or recreation.

Again, in the traditional context, men might also see divorce as financially more devastating than the woman in terms of child support, alimony, division of retirement benefits, the loss of the house, or the debt falling onto him and so they maintain the marriage in name only, but go about their lives in a less than married way.

I'm hesitant to invoke tales of what early human society must have been like and how that embedded itself in our DNA and that can then be used to explain our current behavior. Such tales are highly speculative and really not based on scientific evidence. I take them as "just so stories." If you're interested in how the elephant got its trunk, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_So_Stories

We heard the guys' story. Now we should ask some women. "Are you morally different from guys?" — god must be atheist

Why would a female perspective be better at determining which morality ought pertain to women than a man's would? That seems to imply subjectivism, like if a Frenchman refused to consider the moral judgment of an American because the American didn't understand what it's like to be French. It would seem we ought have one standard, and even if we should find reasons to offer different moralities based upon gender (or whatever distinguishing feature), we would need to objectively justify it and not just defer to what the subgroup thought ought apply to them.

Seems a slippery slope to allow each discernable group the right to dictate which moral standards ought apply to them.

Comparatively, morality in men is measured differently than in women. — L'éléphant

There's obviously a double standard, but the question is whether the double standard is itself moral. That is, it's clear that men may be considered moral when engaging in certain behaviors where a woman wouldn't be, but are you suggesting that should be the case due to inherent differences in the constitution of males and females, or are you suggesting we need to progress past the double standard and have a universal standard for both?

The politically correct response is that what is acceptable for one is acceptable for the other, but there are religious traditions that hold otherwise and that clearly designate specific roles for each. I'm not sure from your post if you're challenging the wisdom of a universal standard given what the statistical data shows regarding the distinctions between the genders.

I don't drink, smoke, do drugs, or even cuss. My only vice is lying.

My conclusion is that Philosophy of Programming' ought to be a field of philosophy, there's so much to discuss and debate and all of it would benefit the art of professional programming. — Varde

Here you go: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/computer-science/

Love this tune.

The fact that the immoral literal interpretation is held to be true by a great number of your fellow-travellers, despite your sophistic brilliance, remains. — Banno

I don't travel with the literalists. They're your kin.

But sure, to the extent there are those advocating throwing stones at little girls' heads, I stand opposed. Such a radical position for a theist, I know.

As can your need to reply to a simple link to a summary. You are engaged in special pleading on a grand scale: an oddly reactionary and defensive response. — Banno

Very poor response, but thanks anyway.

It's not reactionary and defensive, but I'd describe it as your providing an attack against a position that is not held by anyone in this thread. As I've noted, you have thoroughly defeated a certain sort of religious fundamentalism that you believe to be the most commonly held, yet I contend is just the most poorly formulated and unsophisticated form.

I do realize that Lewis addresses my complaint here, but he misses a most critical point and he goes on to say the sophisticated theist isn't immune from the attacks because it's impossible to ignore the literal meaning of some of the passages.

You guys point out that God is terrible for having advocated stoning, but a few stoned little girls is child's play when compared to the story of Noah, where all inhabitants are eradicated, and we're not really sure why such a punishment was necessary.

So then I say there absolutely was no ark, no Noah, and surely not a mass migration of every animal on earth to the near east so that they could hop aboard the boat and avoid death. This isn't defensive to protect my sacred book from ridicule. It's because I don't believe it actually happened, but I still think the book has value, as terribly factually false as it is.

And so I draw you a distinction between mythos and logos, with the former being the mythical interpretation and the latter being the literal. These ancient cultures, and even modern religious ones, did not, and do not, suggest that the purpose of any of the Biblical stories was to provide an accurate historical account of anything (i.e. the logos), nor were the purposes of the myths purely ethical. The myth was to provide an understanding of the world in a mode that is entirely foreign to you (as @Ennui Elucidator has repeatedly said). That is, when the story of Adam and Eve is recounted, the writers never meant to suggest there was an Adam and Eve, and they never even committed to a single creation story in the Bible itself. It attempted to offer, among other things, a reason we must toil for all we earn, and to provide a teleos for our existence. We also learn we don't toil on the sabbath, but reserve that day to enjoy the rewards of our labor, but let us not get caught up into that being only a single, actual day.

If the Bible were written by a culture focused on the logos, I guess they could have just written what they meant and enumerated each claim as P1, P2 and so on, and then we could then debate what each meant. Perhaps they'd have even provided us a picture of a duck rabbit to better explain that sometimes people have entirely different interpretational schemes.

Your pointing out plain (and I mean screamingly obvious) absurdities in the Bible, as if believers could not have seen them as absurdities had it not been for your helpful guidance, must be missing something, unless you truly are baffled as to why such a large segment of the population could be so very blind to the obvious.

The best source I can cite to you for the position I'm arguing is The Case for God, by Karen Armstrong, which I've begun reading recently, whose position seems very much aligned with what I've been arguing.

From a review of her book at: https://religiondispatches.org/religion-is-not-about-belief-karen-armstrongs-ithe-case-for-godi/

“Until well into the modern period,” Armstrong contends, “Jews and Christians both insisted that it was neither possible nor desirable to read the Bible literally, that it gives us no single, orthodox message and demands constant reinterpretation.” Myths were symbolic, often therapeutic, teaching stories and were never understood literally or historically. But that all changed with the advent of modernity. Precipitated by the rediscovery of Aristotle and the rise of scholasticism in the late middle ages, rational systematization took center stage, preparing the way for a modern period that would welcome both humanistic individualism and the eventual triumph of reason and science."

@Banno@IsaacJust to throw in this anecdote to maybe clarify my prior points. I went to a bar mitzvah service this weekend at an Orthodox synagogue with my non-Jewish wife.

All along the fence surrounding the synagogue were signs warning you not to carry beyond the fence. My wife asked why the Jews were so concerned about the open carry laws currently being debated n the Georgia legislature related to the carrying of guns.

The sign actually was a warning caused by the eruv having fallen down due to recent storms. Under Jewish law, you cannot carry objects on the sabbath, as that is considered work and the sabbath is the day of rest. You are, however, permitted to carry within an enclosed area. Within the fence is OK, outside not. You can expand your enclosed area however with an eruv, which is simply a string from one telephone pole to the next, enclosing the entire Jewish community. The eruv was down though, so now no carrying beyond the fence.

What does this show?

1. Biblical law is not vague and ambiguous within the communities that use it as law but very specific with consistent methods of interpretation.

2. The religious community adheres strictly to the law without there being any legal method of enforcement but entirely from respect for the law.

3. Those outside the community who interpret the rules using a foreign context arrive at incorrect (and sometimes humorous) meanings that are obviously incorrect to those within the community.

And some of them say "Democraps" instead of "Democrats". — baker

I once heard that Catholic priests were raping children and the Church covered it up. That's a worse misdeed. And there's even worse than that by many other religions. Even worse by many governments.

Link this back to what we're talking about.

Excommunication is not stoning, of course, but it can critically worsen the person's socio-economic status, even to the point where they face homelessness or death by suicide for lack of socio-economic options. — baker

I'm not going to defend every practice with the LDS church, nor of any institution on the face of the planet. I'm also not going to recognize any similarity between stoning and removal from an organization. If you're truly interested in the nuances of LDS excommunication (versus disfellowship or simply probation), and the actual likelihood of it occurring, you can read it here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/1975/07/q-and-a-questions-and-answers/what-are-the-reasons-for-and-the-process-of-excommunication?lang=eng

There is also a path back through a new baptism as well.

In any event, most every organization has rules for admission and rules for expulsion. If you want to locate abuses within religious organizations, you needn't look to such subtle instances as the one you've cited. We are all well aware of the serious misdeeds performed by various religious institutions over time.

The question of whether a religious institution can be determined as per se evil from a cursory and decontextualized reading of their religious doctrine remains in the negative.

They have Mormons in Australia? :grin: — frank

They do. A most wonderful people. Their disaster relief is truly awe inspiring. I went on some hurricane relief trips with them into areas devastated by hurricanes and helped remove debris, save belongings, and offer assistance. They pitch tents around their local churches and then render aid throughout the week.

And then they go and stone little girls. Whatever. So ridiculous. It would be insulting if not so ignorant.

The question of what a document means is interpreted by the method agreed upon by those who use the document as to what it means.
— Hanover

Who says?

If the law says it's illegal to steal, it's illegal to steal, regardless of whether you have an expectation of getting caught and regardless of whether you have an expectation of Presidential pardon.
— Hanover

That's not the point. The point is that if the law is ambiguous, ie one person thinks it prohibits stealing another that it doesn't, what matters is the interpretation of the legal community. That's where the consequence will be determined. — Isaac

Your first question ("who says?") is answered by yourself in your response to me.

There are methods by those communities who adhere to the tenants of the Bible when interpreting it, and if you want to know whether some stone their girls, you need to use those methods to know.
— Hanover

No I don't, I can just observe their actions. It'd be a better test than asking. — Isaac

You can ask or watch because they are the same thing, meaning they do exactly as they say they are.

you will be saying nothing more than "hypothetically, the bible could be used to justify stoning based upon my two cents upon reading through it, so it's a bad document." So now we know it could be, as opposed to whether it is or ever has been.
— Hanover

That's exactly what I am saying. — Isaac

Every document can be hypothesized into a bad document. I could use the Bill of Rights to justify all sorts of chaos if I wanted to interpret it in a way that no one has ever interpreted and that defies all manner by which people have ever interpreted it.

And your review of this book is what?

That book is written by a Mormon. The Mormons have their own canon (Bible, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, Book of Mormon). They also believe in continuous revelation, meaning God continues to speak to people, and they can add to their canon as their President determines, as he is said to be a prophet. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_works

They are not literalists by any means.

Explain how this is supportive of the argument that since the OT discusses stoning of girls, that is what it means without reference to its context (i.e. usage).

Your post did make clear your desire to judge a book by its cover though without engaging in even the most basic rigor of cracking it open.

Nonsense. The legal interpretation can land me in jail or set me free. It has just about one of the largest meaningful consequences it's possible to have. Were it not for such consequence I might well not give two figs for how legal instructions had been historically interpreted by the legal community either. — Isaac

Nope, that's an irrelevant distinction. The question of what a document means is interpreted by the method agreed upon by those who use the document as to what it means. That would apply whether you're interpreting the criminal code in your jurisdiction that might land you in jail or whether you're interpreting Belgian zoning law that has no application to you, or even ancient Greek legal documents.

Yes, but that's because a Ugandan, like it or not, is not under the jurisdiction of the US constitution and you, like it or not, are. — Isaac

No, that's not why. If I were truly schooled in Ugandan law, I would feel comfortable telling the Ugandans what their law said, but I'm not. I know nothing of their complex and nuanced culture, know nothing of what they rely upon for legal authority, know nothing about how they prioritize authority, know nothing of their unwritten customs, and know nothing about their political system. If seated at the table and asked what Ugandan law is, I'd say I don't know. I'd say the same if I were asked the same of Montana law. That I can read and flip through documents doesn't mean I add any value to that discussion.

This is not the case with the Bible, which is just a book and people voluntarily follow some, all, or none of it's edicts as they see fit. — Isaac

This is a long discussion about a distinction that makes absolutely no difference. If the question is what the French law of 1235 demanded of its citizens and you argued X and me Y, one of us would be correct, despite the fact that law applies to no one. In fact, we could consider a law that was never applied to anyone.

The penalty one might expect from the violation of the law (e.g. incarceration, financial penalty, revocation of special privileges, public scorn, embarrassment, eternity in hell, shunning from the community or whatever) plays zero role in interpreting what the law means. If the law says it's illegal to steal, it's illegal to steal, regardless of whether you have an expectation of getting caught and regardless of whether you have an expectation of Presidential pardon.

There are methods by those communities who adhere to the tenants of the Bible when interpreting it, and if you want to know whether some stone their girls, you need to use those methods to know. If you don't use those methods, then you will be saying nothing more than "hypothetically, the bible could be used to justify stoning based upon my two cents upon reading through it, so it's a bad document." So now we know it could be, as opposed to whether it is or ever has been.

Maybe, but that's because there's a fact of the matter about how legal documents are interpreted. The reason I'd have no luck is because Judges are obliged to take the legal context into account. No-one is obliged to take the theological context into account, you just decide to, and then insist I must also. — Isaac

This is just incorrect and largely why you're not afforded a seat at the table when offering interpretations of biblical sources. There's nothing meaningfully distinct between how legal documents are interpreted as opposed to religious except for the fact that you have respect for the Anglo tradition of legal interpretation, but not for the systems in place for biblical interpretation.

When interpreting a legalistic document, we need to look to how it is interpreted by those who actually use as a guide for their society, whether that be the OT, the Constitution, or any legal code. It makes no more sense for a Ugandan to interpret the US Constitution and tell me what it really means than it does for you to tell someone who relies upon the OT that it really means that stoning is acceptable.

The religious group that holds the OT as a primary source of law is Judaism. Christians, as you might have noticed, do not. Why they eat pork and Jews don't is something you can research if you'd like. So, now looking at Judaic interpretations (as that is the one at play here), we now need to look at which of the Jews consider the OT as a literally true document and we then limit ourselves to that subgroup within Judaic interpretation. That sub-group would be those who are generally considered to be the Orthodox. Their view is not a simple literalism however, but it's one of divine authorship, meaning they do believe God wrote the OT. As each word is from a divine source, each word is impregnated with profound meaning that must be deciphered. That is to say, they reject outright these simplistic literalist interpretations where you interpret by reading from the four corners of the document. You also have to include Talmudic sources in your interpretations as well, as that too is a primary source. That is to say, when we look to interpret the OT from those who use it, no one does as you have done. You are criticizing a view held by no one.

From all of this interpretation arises what is referred to as halacha, which are the determinations of what Jewish law is. The method by which these conclusions are drawn is not nebulous or vague, but is based upon a long standing method. This is to say, there are few people who live their lives with greater certitude than the ultra-religious Jews. They don't go bumbling about wondering what this ever evolving document demands of them..

So, no, nothing you have said means a whole lot. It's just simplistic nonsense that actually argues that adherence to OT law demands (or might one day be so misinterpreted as to demand) we stone little girls. If you are interested in what the OT does demand (and the better word is "command") to the Jews, look it up. There are 613 commandments, not one of which says you are to stone girls.

My special pleading is limited to what actually occurs, having eliminated the hypothetical concerns of those who have no idea what they're talking about, except that they might have engaged in a cursory reading of a document that they now wish to claim equal expertise in. Reading this nonsense is like when I have to respond to a pro se legal pleading.

They would if allowed — Banno

They've had over two hundred years to pass whatever laws they wanted to where I live. If they wanted to stone folks, they would have by now. Maybe it's on next month's agenda.

I really don't know what to make of comments like the above. Is it ribbing or do you have this caricature view of Southern Baptists? I don't think they should get special protection, but I do think they ought be afforded the same respect as other religious groups.

Maybe next time you visit, we can visit the local Baptist church and you'll find them not terribly scary. It'll be fun. It'll be the first time for me at a church service.

But not Southern Baptists. Again, this is special pleading. You ignore those who are using the book, who when you ask them what it means, provide an answer you do not like. — Banno

The Southern Baptists don't stone people.

But of course meaning is imputed, as much as discovered. — Banno

But let's admit at least to the importance of looking at how the words have actually been interpreted by those who use them as opposed to how they might be interpreted by an outsider.

We have a civilization that is thousands of years old and there is a book that appears to allow for stoning in certain instances from a non-contextualized reading of their literature, yet we have no examples in those thousands of years of that stoning occurring in that civilization. In fact, we have evidence that those within that community of speakers have interpreted the book to say that stoning is prohibited. So, for those who have relied upon this book and use it, they don't run into the problem of horrific stonings that those who don't use this book indicate they will.

That's an odd result, right. It's like if I read the laws of Uganda and insisted they permit the eating of their young, yet there's not a single Ugandan who has ever heard of such of thing, but I keep pointing at their book and telling them that they do allow it. At some point you've got to trust the folks that are using that book and asking them what those words actually mean. That you might interpret things differently from your vantage point is academic, but of no meaningful value because you clearly don't know what those words mean to those who actually use them.

do you agree that there are those who read the scriptures as giving permission for abominable acts? — Banno

I believe there are those who read the kindest and gentlest of words, whether it be from the bible or wherever, to do terrible things. So, yes. There are some horrible people out there, Bible or no Bible.

If I don't engage with the text in the way they want, I'm out of the conversation. — Isaac

Sort of, yes. If you read a single page of a legal document without putting it into the context of other controlling documents and opinions and rules, then you're out of the conversation in terms of what the import of the single document is.

Sure, you can keep pointing to the rule you've read and tell me that it makes my society horrible, but it doesn't.

Sure, but the responsibility is also on those who popularize the Bible. Arguably, their responsibility is bigger. The Bible (usually in a simple version without footnotes) is available in many places for free. People are being encouraged to read it.


(One of the reasons Roman Catholicism discouraged literacy and reading the Bible for so long was precisely this concern that if ordinary people are left to themselves reading the Bible, they are very likely going to become confused, lose faith.) — baker

I don't know that I have responsibility to defend the Bible. I don't care what people think about it enough to do that. My only point is that if someone is going to read a passage from the Bible, having some background into what it means is important.

I'm trying not to make this about "isn't the bible terrible", but you force my hand by trying to make out that I'm cherry-picking a single incident. You know there are atrocities in the bible, we all know that, so let's not pretend my shorthand example is a lone aberration. — Isaac

But let's not pretend they are examples of condoned conduct.

See above and see here

Let's look at this from a broader perspective when we're referencing biblical interpretation. Keep in mind the legalistic nature of the interpretation, considering the Bible was used at a time as a legal document setting forth the rules of a society.

First, a modern day example:

I have an automobile insurance policy that reads "your liability coverage shall be $10,000." My question then is, how much liability coverage do I have? The answer is $25,000. That seems a strange reading, right?

The reason though is that in Georgia, there is a statute that requires that the minimum liability limits are $25,000. So you might say that I have no coverage because the insurance company failed to provide the minimum limits, so therefore the policy is void. Well, no, the courts have already addressed this question and have decided that if an insurance company sells a policy with less than $25,000 in limits, those limits will be increased to $25,000. The reason for this is that the public policy of the State is to assure people are covered against losses and not uninsured, so the courts won't void the contract, but they will make it compliant.

What this means is that there are various sources of rules and laws ( in this case: the insurance policy, the statute, and the judicial decisions). The same holds true for the Bible.

When it says we're going to stone the girl, that doesn't mean she will get stoned just like when the policy says you have $10,000 in coverage, that doesn't mean that's all you have.

Jewish interpretation doesn't limit itself to the text, but it relies upon an oral tradition, that tradition holds, was passed down at the time the Torah was given to Moses. What this means is that the text of the Bible is not primary to interpretation, but the spoken history of the people is considered as well. This passage is therefore not interpreted as referring to a literal hand being removed, but that financial compensation must be paid. https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/9989/showrashi/true/jewish/Chapter-25.htm (Click the button that says "show Rashi.") (Who was Rashi? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rashi )

This oral tradition is what is now written in the Talmud.

And all of this is just to further point out that those who wish to open up the Bible, read a passage, and then comment on what it must mean in a vacuum without referencing the religious doctrine as a whole aren't providing a meaningful analysis of any known religion.

Using a book which has to be carefully interpreted in order to avoid the conclusion that stoning girls is OK, as a guide to moral behaviour and community living - that's a big risk. In contemporary America, it may not be causing any problem at all (though I'd argue the contrary), just as the unexploded WWII ordinance might not have caused any problems for the last 80 years. You still wouldn't want one in your back garden would you? — Isaac

You have reduced the Bible to a single passage you do realize, as if the entire book goes on and on about stoning girls. Perhaps if you give the specific cite we can see how it has been interpreted and how it has been placed in context with the greater story.

In any event, we don't have a single instance of a stoning you can cite to in the past 2,000 years in those nations that have adopted the Bible as a guiding document (although I'm sure there were some somewhere). Those limiting stoning (and the death penalty generally) have been the believers in the text (i.e. the rabbis). More recent trends within those nations that have historically accepted the Bible as a foundational document have been to secularize their societies to even further reduce the power of those who interpret the Bible. In current Western societies, the death penalty has been eliminated in many countries and in many states in the US and the total number of death penalty cases where it is legal has been in decline.

I don't see the danger you see.

As for evidence that it's a risk, that it has caused problems in the past, that it causes problems in other parts of the world? Do you still need to ask? — Isaac

By the past, I'm not sure what you're referencing. I can assume that stoning might have occurred in the bronze age and iron age by the desert dwellers in the near east, but I don't know what reliable historical or archeological record you're using to show that other than the dubious historical accuracy of the Bible itself. Even in those instances where stoning was deemed acceptable in the Bible, there's no evidence it was carried out in any significant way. I'll concede barbarism is part of every people's past and we should always remain concerned that our most base instincts don't prevail, but I don't live in fear that one day we'll adopt a strict literalism and start stoning little girls. That doesn't seem to be a reasonable worry.

As to other parts of the world where stoning occurs, that seems limited to Muslim nations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoning#Judaism

Why that is is a much more complicated question than looking to a single book. A society's norms are determined by its peculiar history, which includes its political system, its interaction with other nations, specific leaders it might have had, philosophies it might have adopted and on and on. Why the US has the laws it has goes far beyond what the Bible says. It owes its culture to the English, the French, the Greeks, the Hispanics, the ancient Hebrews, the many diverse African nations, and many more than I need to recite.

Why some Muslim nations engage in stoning seems not entirely related to the biblical text, but to a much larger political and social reason, but I really don't know enough about those regions to speak without more knowledge. I'm also not that clear on Muslim theology and what weight they afford the OT versus the Koran versus various other Muslim sacred literature. But to those who may know, that'd be interesting to learn.

More fundamental to the question of whether a virus has a will to live is whether viruses are ever alive at all. https://microbiologysociety.org/publication/past-issues/what-is-life/article/are-viruses-alive-what-is-life.html

Laughed at this. Perhaps 'Merca was founded on a lie, and continues to believe its own myths in the face of its grossly immoral actions towards its own people and those around the world. A pertinent example of how myths hide reality, and why myths ought to be critiqued. — Banno

Myths aren't factual, which was my point. They are aspirational. If we critique our myths, we realign our aspirations, not the facts. It's for that reason we see an evolution of our myths and why the US Constitution, for example, today affords rights it never did before.

If the myth hides reality, then the myth is being used to determine reality, which isn't to treat it as myth.

You really misread my post. You act as if I were trying to herald the US as being honorable and true. My comments were neutral as to the truth of the myth. I pointed out the myth upon which the nation was built.

There is no fixed, immutable thing that you might call "the meaning of the bible" — Banno

And I don't see that as a problematic objection any more than how it might apply to any other foundational document, as I noted in reference to the US Constitution.

I take exception to your use of "attack". I suppose your excessive defensiveness is explained by your considering a critique of literalism as an attack on your own beliefs. But if you do not hold that god punishes sinners unjustly, then you are not the subject fo the critique. — Banno

You misread my terms. Ironic I suppose. I use "attack" only to reference the opposing point of view. I have no personal investment in the outcome of this discussion. In any event, your exception is noted in the record.

Your repeated denial of the fact that there are folk who do hold that god is unjust is unfortunate for you, but good for the length of my thread. So thanks. — Banno

Of course there are those who hold God is unjust and there are those who hold that God is just. We're not speaking of the same God.

Put simply. People select narratives to make sense of their lives, these narratives have a gravitational pull toward certain interpretations. some narratives are better than others. A narrative which has to be 'interpreted' carefully to avoid the impression that stoning girls to death is OK, is not one of the better ones. — Isaac

What is the empirical basis you have for claiming that those who have carefully interpreted the Bible to read that it's not OK to stone girls to death to prove that the Bible is not a beneficial narrative for the living of their lives or for society in general?

The best I can see is that you find the interpretations farfetched, but shouldn't effectiveness be the determinant for preservation as opposed to lack of farfetchedness? That is, shouldn't we look at the value the current institution has on people's lives, as opposed to whether you personally find it preposterous?

The power of myth can be positive, and myth is what we're talking about here, not facts. Myths are typically created to advance positive societal perspectives. The argument you make is that the biblical myth is too absurd to be true, but if it were, it would be evil. My point is that I know the myth is factually false and I would have no motivation to create a factually false myth that leads to a negative result, so obviously it's positive.

One reason that the Bible gets such positive interpretation (i.e. special pleading) is precisely because it's the narrative we use for positive effects in our society. It's the "good" book. It is therefore specially interpreted that way by definition.

It's like you're running around telling me that George Washington really wasn't a perfectly honest person and that he did not really confess to chopping down the cherry tree. Yeah, I get none of it happened. I think the myth being advanced in that narrative is that America was founded by the most honest of men, explaining its higher sense of morality than all other nations. I'm not asking that you accept that narrative as factually correct or even as accurate myth, but the message I've noted is the point of that story. I don't find the criticism that the events didn't take place or that a tree chopper is an unredeemable character at all responsive to the narrative though.

Who says I'm not? Again, the same special pleading. I'm not entitled to an opinion about what the meaning is to me, what it's value is to me. Only positive interpretations are welcome. What other text gets that treatment? — Isaac

Should we start with the belief that the Bible is the literal inerrant word of an omni-benevolent God, then any negative interpretation would necessarily be false and would be blasphemous. Under this assumption, it is not special pleading to treat the Bible as special because this assumes the Bible is special, a tablet etched in stone by the finger of God. The Lord of the Rings is treated differently because God didn't write it in the perfect way God writes. It was written by a mere mortal for profit.

On the other hand, if we start with the belief that the Bible was written by many different people over many years and that it reveals the collective wisdom gathered over the millennia, then we would recognize its importance, but we would allow whatever criticisms you might have of it, just like any other book. Of course, some books are better than others and we tend to think more deeply, for example, about the contents of the Lord of the Rings than of Green Eggs and Ham. We don't treat Lord of the Rings as a special case by holding it to a higher level than Green Eggs and Ham. We treat it as a better book because it is on an objective level more complex and meaningful. Such too is the case of the Bible when compared to other works.

I suspect some think the Lord of the Rings is stupid fantasy bullshit, while others that it has deeper meaning. As to the former group, I'll trust them when they say it's worthless to them. As to the latter group, I'll trust them as they say it is to them. All this holds true to the Bible. Take it or leave it, but to those who have found it a guide for life, then I trust it does as they say.

I'm trying to see where there's a problem here unless the focus of your attack is upon the proselytizing and evangelizing fundamental literalists who refuse to listen to your critiques, continue to try to convert you, and then condemn you to hell. The lowest rung on the religious ladder are clearly vulnerable to your attacks and have little useful or logical response. They have been thoroughly decimated and embarrassed by your onslaught.

Now, moving up a rung on that ladder, what are you attacks on those folks?

Did you glance at the article? It clarifies how the consequence - it calls them forward effects or downstream consequences - are open-ended; one can extemporise on religious beliefs in a way that does not happen with factual beliefs. — Banno

With regard to the Leeuwen article, I see it as clearly showing the inherent weakness of relying upon religious doctrine to prove physical facts about the world. The scientific method is the proper epistemology for such questions.

Questions of good and evil and what to hold out as sacred and what to hold in low regard and what it means to live a life well lived are not addressed through the scientific method. We rely upon wisdom, derivable through our intellectual and spiritual histories, which includes, among other things, religious doctrine.

We have 2 categories here and therefore 2 methods of obtaining answers. The mental world doesn't derive answers from the same sources as the physical world.

As to those who insist we can look to Genesis to determine how we came to exist and disregard the fossil evidence, they make the same mistake as those who try to discover the meaning of life in a petri dish.

Anyway, do you take Leeuwen to contradict what I've said?

But also, I offered the Leeuwen article as a contribution towards working with the sort of non-literal meaning you espouse, in addition to the usual reference to unconformable and influential metaphysics. It's not that these alternate readings havn't been addressed. — Banno

I did locate your Leeuwen article (https://philpapers.org/archive/VANRCI.pdf). I note he went to my alma mater, apparently having benefitted from the wisdom I left behind. I really don't dispute that the religious versus the non-religious likely adopt very different epistemologies depending upon how divergent the two group's worldviews are. My position is that when it comes to facts about the world (the very type Leeuwen identifies), I rely upon the same methods for knowledge as you do. That is, I don't use religion to figure out whether I have almonds in my cupboard (his example). I use it to find meaning, purpose, and morality. I don't know how anything Leeuwen says addresses the credulity of those beliefs just because they are based upon religious doctrine.

His point is well taken, but obvious. If you want to know actual facts about the world, like where it came from, who first occupied it, whether sometimes manna falls from the sky, or sometimes bushes burn but go unconsumed, religion isn't where you should look. If you want to know what to do with the life you've got and why you might want to do that, religion might be where you want to look.

And than there is the issue that, once one entertains non-literal readings, any reading will do... So we can add a nice derangement of epitaphs. There is no fixed meaning for the text. — Banno

I'd start by saying that we have to agree upon an interpretive method, and there's nothing special about literalism that might lead one to think it's the default or primary method for interpretation. It's clear the Bible, as we know it, is a compilation of at least 4 different works sewn together, with duplicative and conflicting accounts of the same events. There are two flood stories and two creation stories, for example. One would assume the author therefore did not intend the story to be taken literally. Of course, to what extent you think author's intent is relevant for interpretation is another matter.

For some discussion on why we now have those who take it literally, see: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2011/feb/21/biblical-literalism-bible-christians.

Attacking the literalists might be justified, but then moving beyond that and attacking religion generally would not be. It may just be you're attacking those with the weakest justifications for their beliefs.

I don't follow how non-literalism is more prone to lack of fixed meaning than literalism is. Words change meanings in very subtle ways over time as do the context in which they're used. The notion that we speak directly and clearly and convey exact thoughts with our words is the analytic philosopher's perfect dream, but that's not what really happens. How many books have been written on what Wittgenstein really meant and how many confict with each other?

And on the other side of things, we all accept that Aesop was not speaking of an actual tortoise and hare, yet the metaphorical meaning of that story seems to have withstood time. That is, despite it being literally false, no one would say that any reading will do when deciphering the metaphor.

And then let's look to the US Constitution. What does it mean? Are you a literalist when it comes to it? I don't read the word "abortion" anywhere in that text, but it apparently contemplates pregnancy and it divides it into three trimesters, each one allowing for differing amounts of state regulation that can be imposed. Do you look to the author's intent, or is it a living document, interpreted with the evolving morality of the times? If it is subject to changing interpretation, does it follow that "any reading will do," or are there is still incorrect readings.

My point here is that you've beaten the holy hell out of what any half-way sophisticated theist would consider a strawman.

Perhaps you did not recognise that these issues are being addressed? — Banno

Let me find the article you're referring to. 22 pages. I keep up the best I can

You keep saying this, others including myself keep pointing out that there are folk who do take it literally, that ignoring them is special pleading. No, we are not "misreading". You are reading selectively.

We all understand that you do not believe the nasty bits in those books. But some folk do. — Banno

Reading it non-literally is not special pleading. Reading it literally is. The majority of adherents to the Abrahamic traditions don't believe in stoning.

In any event, should you identify those who have used the Bible to advance their horrible agendas, I stand with you in fighting against them. But that really has less to do with theology than politics. Some preachers preached for civil rights, others against it. I'm not sure the opponents really cared what the book said.