Some of my atheist buddies and I have been discussing something that seemed interesting enough that I wanted to share it with my old atheist acquaintances here.

The discussion concerns the growing trend among the religious to treat scriptural passages as non-literal. When individuals utilize scripture in this way it is relatively simple to find a passage that will apply to damn near any situation, question, or problem.

This practice can also convince the practitioner that the scriptures really are a great source of information and work on a personal level. "That passage was exactly what I needed, how did Paul know to write that just for me"

This observation is known as the Forer effect or the Barnum effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_statements

Of Course many religious types teach their children to read holy books as though they were written specifically about and for them. This was true of my seminary education as well where I was instructed to insert my name into scripture so that I would remember that ancient prophets saw my time and were speaking directly to me. It's inevitable that an individual will experience the Forer effect under those circumstances.

The ultimate conclusion we made in our discussion is that While this behavior is patently egocentric, it is still preferable to those that DO take these passages literally.

To paraphrase something I once heard Christopher Hitchens say "The worst thing I can say about Christian fundamentalists is that they seem to actually believe what the bible says."

Literalists really freak me out. Faith is one thing, but at some point you have to come to terms with the fact that your holy books contain information that could not possibly be true in a literal sense. Could they be parables inspired by God? Sure they could. They could also be stories made up by dudes, but whatever. I'm willing to say that accepting the bible as the word of God is understandable, but believing it was literal with the flood and parting seas and burning bush tower of babel and all that is just insane.

The sheer number of different species of beetles that exist should be pretty concrete proof on its own that the flood thing didn't actually happen.

They're literal about the things they like, not so much about the things they don't like, or that clearly contradict the things they like.

And they flip-flop. Sometimes hell is a real place, sometimes it's just figurative... although nobody that claims hell is figurative has ever offered an explanation as to just what they mean by that.

In order to understand the scriptures, one needs to understand why they were written, and take them in the context of when they were written.
The Old Testament was written for political purposes-to advance monotheism and strengthen the Jewish position in Israel. The New Testament writings were cherry-picked and collated by Romans in order to further their own brand of Christianity. The Book of Mormon...well, it was written to make money, but when Joe couldn't sell the copyright in Canada, he made a religion out of it.

If it sounds far-fetched, then I believe it's figurative. If it sounds plausible, then I consider it perhaps real. If I'm wrong it doesn't really matter anyway.

Then what's the point? If you cannot take it literally, and you have to use your own knowledge and judgement to interpret and apply it anyway, throwing out huge sections along the way because they are nonsense, what good is it as a resource at all?

Not defending the bible here, but the above statement applies to the internet and I still use that as a resource.

Yes, but you don't claim the internet was inspired by god. When that claim is made, people stop using the regular rules of evidence and reason in their evaluations. You don't pick certain webpages and say, "well that doesn't sound totally ridiculous, I guess it must be from god. Let's use it to legislate public policy." While ignoring the utterly impossible parts and calling them metaphors, or whatever other excuses they use.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/07/2011 05:20PM by Pista.

...problem is, these folks are stuck back in the sixteenth century.

Indeed.

And as the 'Mother Church' strenuously stressed at the time, follow that road (reading scripture via one's "Inner Light") and everyone will end up a sect of One.


My sense is that there are as many "christianities" as there are Christians.

It's much like horoscopes. People who want to find what they want to see, will find it.

I remember hearing some goofball in church going off about how he can open the scriptures with his eyes closed and point to a scripture, and it will be just what he needs. The implication was that God was directing the pages and finger.

Well, duh. You can make scriptures fit anything. All you have to do is make an association with anything you want. Psychics do this all the time and people refuse to see they are fueling the information to make it fit.

The Bible has things that would support both sides of any issue. Be it slavery, women's rights, beating children....whether you support it or or are against it, the Bible offers validation. It's especially convenient since so many people read it with their personal interpretation.

+1 That mindset is most useful when TBMs are giving sacrament talks. They can take any event or experience in their lives and use it as a metaphor for the gorspel.

...meaning that in any scripture that we read, we are supposed to find what lesson, instruction or message it contains that can specifically be applied to our own lives.

===
1 Nephi 19:23

23 And I did read many things unto them which were written in the books of Moses; but that I might more fully persuade them to believe in the Lord their Redeemer I did read unto them that which was written by the prophet Isaiah; for I DID LIKEN ALL SCRIPTURES UNTO US, that it might be for our profit and learning.
===

That's a recipe for a lot of migraines, if you take it seriously--and especially if you read everything literally.

There are both pros and cons to the literal vs. metaphorical approach, however.

The literal approach at least keeps its adherents anchored to the actual words of their holy texts and forces them to reconcile the inconsistencies and absurdities. They may persist in cherry picking and so on, but at least you can shut them up temporarily and make them uncomfortable by pointing out what they're being dishonest about.

The "it's all metaphorical" bunch can be very slippery. Most are benign and their scriptures essentially become a glorified Rorschach test--i.e. each metaphoricist chooses to "see" in their scriptures whatever they want to see, either consciously or sub-consciously.

But the metaphorical approach can also be a vast playground for scammers and schemers who can spin gold and lucrative cult organizations out of all of those "hidden metaphors" waiting for a smooth-tongued con artist to apply his/her self-serving interpretations.

Similarly, Mormons who take the temple ritual seriously have to ignore the criticisms or defend against them based on what the rituals themselves claim to be. Mormons who take it all metaphorically simply slip and slide around every problem with the grace of a figure skater--conjuring up a new metaphor du jour to meet every problem and conveniently forgetting all of the previously conjured metaphors that are inconsistent with the new one. And ultimately, when pressed for details, they STILL can't explain what the forkin' hell metaphor is supposed to be represented by the now-deleted five points of fellowship, or the particular grips of the handshakes or the bloody disembowelment and throat slitting gestures or....

Ultimately, they simply rely on the NOTION that it's all metaphorical and lazily neglect to get around to figuring out what the metaphors are in any coherent way. They're "absolutely certain" that the metaphors are there, but they're content to find out what exactly they are at some future time. So don't bother them with questions. They already "know" that they have all the answers. It's just that the answers are always located somewhere in the future, so you'll have to wait along with them to find out what they are. ;o)

Gah...that one drives my husband up a wall. He calls it LDS Bibliomancy.

Athough not one of your old atheist buddies, I trust that I may respond.

Before doing so, it's important to note that reading scripture non-literally perhaps *is* a growing trend among American literalists but is nevertheless the norm these past 2-3 thousand years or so. Allegory, for example, dominated the Western Mind up until the Rationalist 18th Century. American literalists, if indeed they are trending towards reading non-literally, are merely learning to read, as it were. Shedding their literalness makes them more literate.


That out of the way, let's look at this so-called "Forer Effect" as applied to reading scripture. Reading the wiki-link describing the effect I can't tell how it doesn't apply to *all* imaginative literature. The sense that a "passage was exactly what I needed" is so common among readers of novels, poems and the 'good letters' that it could be said to be universal. It's how reading often feels. The sense can be so strong that many will speak of books or authors or poems choosing them rather than the other way around. "Hamlet", say, a work that has chosen countless readers, is obviously general enough to have earned sustained and international acclaim over generations, it is "general enough to apply to a wide range of people." And yet every reading feels personal and unlike any other. This is true for any good book that has commanded our attention over generations. Not only do many "religious types" teach children to read books as "though they were written specifically about and for them," but many "teacher types" do, too.

Now, I understand American Fundamentalists wouldn't like my describing 'The Bible' for what it is, imaginative literature, just as New Atheists wouldn't like my describing the 'The Bible' as demonstrably the most fecund piece of imaginative literature ever written (exempting perhaps Shakespeare). New Atheists aren't comfortable with William Blake's idea of 'The Bible' as the "Great Code of Art," or Northrop Frye running with this in "The Great Code," which is in many ways an extension of how Greek Church Fathers like Origen and Clement or Latin Fathers like Cyprian and Ambrose approached scripture. And as for the idea that 'The Bible' is different because "inspired", somehow derived from God, the trope is so common it falls into cliche. Writers have evoked the Muse since the beginning, and still often do in a modified, modern way. All great literature is "inspired".

So to the ultimate conclusion arrived at by you and your friends, besides observing that living life itself is "patently egocentric," I couldn't agree more. American Fundamentalists, if indeed they are trending towards reading scripture in a more literary rather than literal way, are growing-up. Good for them. Now it's time New Atheists do the same, and allow that 'The Bible' has always been and will continue to be far more than Fundamentalists initially imagined. The symbiotic relationship between Fundamentalists and their New Atheist scoffers strikes me as an irony oddly lost on the New Atheists themselves (exempting Hitchens). They're two sides of the same critical coin, as it were.

Human

They just don't see it as literally being the word of god.

Once you put the notion that it is literally god's special collection of words behind you, all you're left with is literature. And you can interpret it, love it, hate it, laugh at, treat it sacredly or treat it lightly, look for hidden meanings and codes, or do whatever it is that one does with other works of literature.

It's one of the central works of literature in western civilization. Countless of its themes and phrases have been used in other works of literary fiction, e.g., "East of Eden." Drawing on the power of its status in western civilization to give weight and depth to other literary works and devices does not require a belief that its contents are inherently superior to any other book.

It's definitely a rich source of imagery and religious themes. Some of it is just twisted and an incitement for religious fanatics to commit murder and mayhem. The fundies probably wouldn't agree with your statement of it being "far more" than they initially imagined. Logically, what they imagine it to be is pretty impressive. To them it's a book that was ordered into being by none other than the ultimate Lord and Master of all that exists, yeah, even the supreme being and creator of all matter and energy. And everything in it really happened.

You got your ark with all those animal specimens. You got your talking serpent. You got the she bear who eats children who mock prophets. You got your burning bush and a beach that runs directly through the middle of the Red Sea with excellent surfing conditions on each side. You've got your slaughter of the Caananites. You got it all.

But now you come along and say that none of that stuff really happened and that you just have to look at it as metaphors and archetypes. Well, that's not going to sound like "far more" to a fundie. It's going to sound like far less. It's like believing that all of the Harry Potter stories are absolutely 100% true and then someone tells you that it's "far more" than that because it's only fiction. ;o)

Gorspel Dacktrin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> But now you come along and say that none of that
> stuff really happened and that you just have to
> look at it as metaphors and archetypes. Well,
> that's not going to sound like "far more" to a
> fundie. It's going to sound like far less. It's
> like believing that all of the Harry Potter
> stories are absolutely 100% true and then someone
> tells you that it's "far more" than that because
> it's only fiction. ;o)


Ha ha, yes.

But still, even though I certainly can't speak for fundies (literalists have always baffled me), I can't see how taking Iron John, say, literally isn't an extreme diminishment from taking Iron John as Robert Bly, say, takes Iron John.

It's only fiction, yes. But here a test:

You can only save one colour of Britannica's "Great Books of the Western World" for all time and eternity, which would you save?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Books_of_the_Western_World

For me LightGreen is always my first choice (Homer, the Greek plays, Virgil, Dante, Chaucer, Rabelais, Shakespeare, etc). Yes, it is *only* fiction; yet it sums Man most thoroughly.

Needless to say, the DarkGreen is always my last choice (Galen, Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler, Gilbert, etc).

But I bet we both will agree that both shades of Green belong in any set of "Great Books of the Western World".

If we don't have at least a working familiarity with the Bible, we miss the richness of a vast amount of Western literature and thought. We are all cultural Christians whether we like it or not.

robertb Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> We are
> all cultural Christians whether we like it or not.

So true, Robert. We are probably remiss in not teaching "The Bible" in our schools, solely based upon its cultural relevance alone.

Robert Alter's The Art of Biblical Narrartive:

http://www.amazon.com/Art-Biblical-Narrative-Robert-Alter/dp/0465022553/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&qid=1315620456&sr=8-5

Northrop Frye's The Great Code:

http://www.amazon.com/Great-Code-Bible-Literature/dp/0156027801/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1315620561&sr=1-1

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
We are probably remiss in not
> teaching "The Bible" in our schools, solely based
> upon its cultural relevance alone.
>

I think that would have a double effect of making it more difficult for students to become Bible fundamentalists and increasing their cultural literacy.

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> let's look at this so-called
> "Forer Effect" as applied to reading scripture.
> Reading the wiki-link describing the effect I
> can't tell how it doesn't apply to *all*
> imaginative literature.

Well perhaps I didn't explain myself very well. My assertions had less to do with the bible and more to do with how certain individuals read it. The Forer Effect doesn't "apply" to literature, but is rather an observation about human behavior. Take something like a cold reading using tarot cards for example. Many people find these readings to be personal, specific, and insightful. Some of us find the information gleaned from the cards to be so abstract and generic that it could be applied to nearly anyone or anything. Only the first group of people are experiencing the effect.

The way this applies to scripture reading is simple. If you can convince children (like in my case) or even naive adults that the bible is specific and personal in the same way, they will inevitably find numerous verses that seemingly confirm and re-enforce that belief.

Additionally, a non-literalist view lends its self to applying the same biblical versus to multiple circumstances. It's problematic to think this way and helps explain why figures such as Glenn Beck or Michelle Bachman feel the recent hurricane was a message from god, though the two differ on what the message was (Glenn thinks it was to remind us to have food storage). The Wikipedia link in my original post discusses this as well and calls it "subjective validation"

If people insist on being silly in this manner I'd rather they try and use fortune cookies to guide their lives and ditch the bible. The reason being is that I've never encountered a cookie message suggesting that homosexuals should be stoned to death.

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The sense that a "passage
> was exactly what I needed" is so common among
> readers of novels, poems and the 'good letters'
> that it could be said to be universal.

Bull Shit. The Forer effect is not universal. And finish the quote, the part you spliced off is "how did Paul know to write that just for me" It's not the same thing and the value of "imaginative literature" as you put it does not advance the conversation.

> Not only do many "religious
> types" teach children to read books as "though
> they were written specifically about and for
> them," but many "teacher types" do, too.

Really? The only teachers I've ever encountered that engaged in that particular practice were religious and I don't feel they did me a service by lying to me. However I'll grant your assertion that many teachers do this and simply lament how shitty it is that they do.

> Now, I understand American Fundamentalists
> wouldn't like my describing 'The Bible' for what
> it is, imaginative literature, just as New
> Atheists wouldn't like my describing 'The
> Bible' as demonstrably the most fecund piece of
> imaginative literature ever written (exempting
> perhaps Shakespeare).

Again, not really the point of my post but I'll oblige as you've said something here I've not encountered before. I had to Google "Fecund" and I'm still not sure what you're getting at. If you're suggesting the bible is especially creative I have to agree. Stories like Daniel and the lions den, or Noah and the flood are cool stories, but that coolness is undermined by the fact that so many people believe that shit actually happened. I like Robin Hood as well, but I'm not delusional enough to believe its a reliable account of historical events. Maybe you can educate me here as I suspect I don't understand. In what way is the bible "demonstrably fecund". Also, would you say the same thing about the Quran? If not, then what's the difference?


> New Atheists aren't
> comfortable with William Blake's idea of 'The
> Bible' as the "Great Code of Art,"

Seems like you're paining with a broad brush there. If you want this atheists opinion of the bible? I'd say it has more literary merit than the Harry Potter series, but isn't as well written, inspiring, or entertaining as several dozen other works I've read. The bible certainly isn't the best book available on most subjects and is terribly inconsistent for teaching morality, or serving as a guide to live ones life by even though the majority of christian sycophants claim it is.


> American Fundamentalists, if indeed
> they are trending towards reading scripture in a
> more literary rather than literal way, are
> growing-up. Good for them. Now it's time New
> Atheists do the same, and allow that 'The Bible'
> has always been and will continue to be far more
> than Fundamentalists initially imagined.

OK, I'll keep an open mind. However, I hold to my suspicion that once humanity reaches a consensus that the bible is not the literal word of god, its popularity will plummet.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2011 02:58AM by rj.