Literalism and Autism

[The Grand Nudger]

You either believe the Christ myth or you don’t, lol.

If you don’t, you’re not a christian. That won’t make your beliefs wrong, or lessen the importance of the allegories contained in magic book to you. It can’t make your interpretation wrong.

Understanding that, though, can make your self identification more accurate, which will lead to more productive conversations.

Especially here, and particularly when it comes to literalism and allegory and metaphor. If you think that the contents of the Christ myth, in new and old magic book, are allegorically but not literally true....then you’re in agreement with the vast majority of atheists.....who don’t have autism, lol.

[EgoDeath]

Like I said deductive reasoning.

If all monkeys we’ve observed when exposed to certain stimuli, behave in similar predictable patterns, it’s safe to assume that other monkeys would behave similarly as well.

I expect humans when exposed to stimuli like a vision, to behave in ways consistent with the observations of how other humans who experienced them.

I expect when human beings use the phrase “it’s raining cats and dogs”, to mean it’s raining hard outside and not literally. Now maybe some person had a hallucination, of it’s literally raining cats and dogs, but unless the person told me that, I’d take the phrase it’s raining cats and dogs, non-literally.

Once again, you're simply not providing a good enough reason to believe this. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The creation in Genesis cannot be compared to the behavior of monkeys reacting to a red ball, nor the commonly known phrase of "it's raining cats and dogs."

There being a lack of a specific wording or a qualifying statement doesn't suddenly mean that we should take it as a metaphor. That would mean the whole of the scripture is to be taken metaphorically, unless explicitly stated otherwise. That is your reasoning and, apparently, it makes sense to you. I'll have to agree to disagree with you. As do a large number of, if not most, Christians. In fact, even Josephus disagreed with the idea that the creation in Genesis was allegorical.

When the style of the writing resembles the style use in allegorical stories, when nothing contained in the writing indicates literalism, such as no particular historical setting etc..., when the meaning of the story as a contained passage, isnt impacted by non-literalism, etc... I assume it was written non-literally.

Unless I have a reason to assume the author/s wanted me to take it literally, as a historical event, than I don’t.

And yes I take the Adam and Eve story allegorically as well. Adam is not even a proper name, but rather a term for mankind, not to mention  forbidden trees  “with fruit of knowledge of good and evil”, placed in the middle of a garden.

The story itself appears to be about how the knowledge/consciousness  of good and evil, is the basis of doing evil/bad, choose it over good, feel shame, guilt etc...

Unfortunately for you, no where in the Bible does it ever state explicitly, "This is a passage you are to read and follow literally."

So I suppose the whole of the Bible is just one big metaphor? Maybe the book's existence itself is a metaphor? Oh wow. This goes deeper than we originally thought. Having any back pain? It must hurt constantly bending over backwards to make these statements of yours make sense.

Once again, all you're really doing is giving a reason why you personally think the passage is allegorical. You haven't given anyone else a good enough reason to believe you, yet. I'm still waiting.

If the meaning of the vastly majority of the Bible, isn’t impacted by assuming their non-literal, if it isn’t causing you to ponder questions outside the context of the text themselves, than there isn’t any real reason to assume these writing are literal.

English isn't your first language, is it? What are you trying to say?

For the most part you can leave the question of literal or not to the side, because it would probably just be a distraction, and try to work out the meaning of the passage. After that you can if you want try and work out if it was describing a literal historical event or not. Just don’t let that question confuse or obscure what meaning the authors were attempting to convey. This is a question many atheists get stuck on, but not religious literalist themselves.

I'm not stuck on anything, as gae tried to explained to you, most atheists are not. I'm simply trying to understand how you differentiate that the creation in Genesis isn't literal when other stories are.

So far, you've done little but walk around in circles to explain your reasoning to me.

I’m not in the business of proofs

I can tell.

And, you still haven't adequately explained where the connection is on this topic to autism. What was that about? Do you have an adequate explanation? Or were you just trying to insinuate that some of us may be developmental disorders simply because we disagree with you?

You're one haughty fuck, Acro.

Imagine I went to a Christian forum talking about, "I wonder if there's a connection between schizophrenia and Christianity. I'm not making fun of you guys, I swear! I'm just honestly curious."

I'd be lucky if I wasn't banned immediately, sensitive as some of you are.

[Acrobat]

Once again, you're simply not providing a good enough reason to believe this. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. The creation in Genesis cannot be compared to the behavior of monkeys reacting to a red ball, nor the commonly known phrase of "it's raining cats and dogs."

Having a vision can, I can compare human beings having a visionary experience to monkeys reacting to a red ball.

There being a lack of a specific wording or a qualifying statement doesn't suddenly mean that we should take it as a metaphor.

It also the presence of wording, words like "tree of knowledge of good and evil", sound highly symbolic. It should be said that even Literalist don't disagree with the metaphorical nature of the genesis account, they accept that, and believe it's literal. Not that taking it as literal negates it's metaphorical components. I almost never have to appeal to literalism, or non-literalism to discuss the meaning of the passages here.

Why I believe the story is not literal, is not all that important to my christian beliefs. It's just not problematic.

That would mean the whole of the scripture is to be taken metaphorically, unless explicitly stated otherwise. That is your reasoning and, apparently, it makes sense to you.

Every portion of scripture is to be judged on its own merits. Passages about ritual and dietary rules in the OT were meant to be followed literally, though they also had symbolic importance as well, like we could say of wedding rings. There's a literal ring my wife wants me to put on her finger, that symbolizes our union. Instructions about stoning x offenders, were all taken quite literally, etc....

There has to be direct or indirect reasons to assume a passage is literal or historical, if those are entirely absent, then it might not be that clear one way or the other, and we have to proceed with that ambiguity.

Once again, all you're really doing is giving a reason why you personally think the passage is allegorical. You haven't given anyone else a good enough reason to believe you, yet. I'm still waiting.

And you haven't pointed out anything about my reasoning thats flawed. If my reasoning is sound, and you just don't agree with my conclusions, then I can't do anything about that.

And, you still haven't adequately explained where the connection is on this topic to autism. What was that about? Do you have an adequate explanation? Or were you just trying to insinuate that some of us may be developmental disorders simply because we disagree with you?

I have. A few times already. I also indicated that I was not insinuating anything of the sort. If you're not satisfied with the response, we're just going to have to move on, rather than dwell on it.

[EgoDeath]

Having a vision can, I can compare human beings having a visionary experience to monkeys reacting to a red ball.

Well, we can agree to disagree. I think your explanation is complete dog shit. You think it makes perfect sense. Everyone has an opinion.

It also the presence of wording, words like "tree of knowledge of good and evil", sound highly symbolic. It should be said that even Literalist don't disagree with the metaphorical nature of the genesis account, they accept that, and believe it's literal. Not that taking it as literal negates it's metaphorical components. I almost never have to appeal to literalism, or non-literalism to discuss the meaning of the passages here.

Why I believe the story is not literal, is not all that important to my christian beliefs. It's just not problematic.

It sounds highly symbolic to you. So what? You might as well be trying to convince me that red velvet cake is better than vanilla. All you've done is essentially provide your opinion as to why you think the passage is allegorical.

Every portion of scripture is to be judged on its own merits. Passages about ritual and dietary rules in the OT were meant to be followed literally, though they also had symbolic importance as well, like we could say of wedding rings. There's a literal ring my wife wants me to put on her finger, that symbolizes our union. Instructions about stoning x offenders, were all taken quite literally, etc....

There has to be direct or indirect reasons to assume a passage is literal or historical, if those are entirely absent, then it might not be that clear one way or the other, and we have to proceed with that ambiguity.

And you haven't pointed out anything about my reasoning thats flawed. If my reasoning is sound, and you just don't agree with my conclusions, then I can't do anything about that.

Because you haven't given any concrete reasoning for anything. You've basically just gone around in circles over and over, giving your opinion on why you think you're right. What am I suppose to do? Tell you your opinion is wrong? I couldn't care less.

I've learned that you don't really have a good reason to think what you think, and that tells me enough about you.

I have. A few times already. I also indicated that I was not insinuating anything of the sort. If you're not satisfied with the response, we're just going to have to move on, rather than dwell on it.

Well, not really, but okay.

Once again, imagine I suggested a connection between schizophrenia and Christianity. But oh! It's just a legitimate concern I have! I'm not making fun of you, I swear.

Your thinly veiled nonsense is duly noted.

[mordant]

The OP might have a little merit if determining "what was meant to be taken" literally (or not) was straightforward enough that there would be only two Christian denominations: the autistics and the non-autistics. Alas -- there are, even by the most charitable reckoning, dozens of camps that exist. Some would say, tens of thousands. And many (though not all) of the differences hinge on how literally to take certain passages. More proximally, the differences hinge on different hermeneutic systems (interpretational systems) but when you unpack the differences, a lot of the differences in hermeneutics are differences in what to read in (or not read in) / infer from the text, and what context to see (or be blind to), a great deal of that is about what to take (non-)literally.

All the OP amounts to is a version of "our group's interpretation (or possibly, MY interpretation) is self-evidently right and anyone who disagrees with me must be a reprobate / heretic / dunce / sinner / autistic".

[EgoDeath]

The OP might have a little merit if determining "what was meant to be taken" literally (or not) was straightforward enough that there would be only two Christian denominations: the autistics and the non-autistics. Alas -- there are, even by the most charitable reckoning, dozens of camps that exist. Some would say, tens of thousands. And many (though not all) of the differences hinge on how literally to take certain passages. More proximally, the differences hinge on different hermeneutic systems (interpretational systems) but when you unpack the differences, a lot of the differences in hermeneutics are differences in what to read in (or not read in) / infer from the text, and what context to see (or be blind to), a great deal of that is about what to take (non-)literally.

All the OP amounts to is a version of "our group's interpretation (or possibly, MY interpretation) is self-evidently right and anyone who disagrees with me must be a reprobate / heretic / dunce / sinner / autistic".

Well, there may be two main camps, then all the camps in between would fall somewhere on the spectrum.



And yea, I love the fact that he veiled this weird insult as some legitimate concern about atheists being autistic. How hilarious.

[factseeker]

Atheists often ask how do I determine whats literal and non-literal in the Bible.

I point out thats, easy, by treating the Bible as I would any other text, or figure of speech, or everyday language, and determine whether it was meant to be taken literal or non-literal (sarcastically, hyperbolically, metaphorically, etc...). We do based on a variety of contextual cues.  I manage doing this pretty well, without anyway having to telling me that they were being sarcastic, etc.... I was under the impression that most people do so as well. 

But people still seem confused, as if they have trouble in everyday language as well.  As if, many people here struggle in ways similar to how people on the autistic spectrum struggle. The tendency among folks on the spectrum, is that they're inclined to read things very literally, and struggle to understand non-literal expressions. So if you tell an autistic child to step on it, to get them moving faster, they'll possibly ask you what should they step on? 

You have to make all sorts of accommodations to ensure your child on the spectrum understands what you're saying, and avoid non-literal expressions as much as possible. 


There seems to be some parallel between that and the issue with recognizing non-literalism in religious text. And I can't tell if that's because many people here are on the spectrum, if something akin to the sort of tendency of people on the spectrum, has been repeated by a person's environmental factors. Or if they're just pulling my leg, when they act is if they struggle with such distinctions.  

Qs:

Do you struggle with deciphering literal and non-literal expressions in everyday language and elsewhere, and therefore struggle with doing so when reading the Bible? 

Is everywhere else just fine, just when it comes to the Bible, and religious texts that you struggle with making such distinctions? 



I agree that certain parts of the bible can be very confusing, not knowing whether text must be taken literally or figuratively.





_______________________________________________

Moderator Notice
Links removed for 30/30 violation

[factseeker]

Atheists often ask how do I determine whats literal and non-literal in the Bible.

I point out thats, easy, by treating the Bible as I would any other text, or figure of speech, or everyday language, and determine whether it was meant to be taken literal or non-literal (sarcastically, hyperbolically, metaphorically, etc...). We do based on a variety of contextual cues.  I manage doing this pretty well, without anyway having to telling me that they were being sarcastic, etc.... I was under the impression that most people do so as well. 

But people still seem confused, as if they have trouble in everyday language as well.  As if, many people here struggle in ways similar to how people on the autistic spectrum struggle. The tendency among folks on the spectrum, is that they're inclined to read things very literally, and struggle to understand non-literal expressions. So if you tell an autistic child to step on it, to get them moving faster, they'll possibly ask you what should they step on? 

You have to make all sorts of accommodations to ensure your child on the spectrum understands what you're saying, and avoid non-literal expressions as much as possible. 


There seems to be some parallel between that and the issue with recognizing non-literalism in religious text. And I can't tell if that's because many people here are on the spectrum, if something akin to the sort of tendency of people on the spectrum, has been repeated by a person's environmental factors. Or if they're just pulling my leg, when they act is if they struggle with such distinctions.  

Qs:

Do you struggle with deciphering literal and non-literal expressions in everyday language and elsewhere, and therefore struggle with doing so when reading the Bible? 

Is everywhere else just fine, just when it comes to the Bible, and religious texts that you struggle with making such distinctions? 



I agree that certain parts of the bible can be very confusing, not knowing whether text must be taken literally or figuratively.





_______________________________________________

Moderator Notice
Links removed for 30/30 violation

[mordant]

I agree that certain parts of the bible can be very confusing, not knowing whether text must be taken literally or figuratively.

If I might offer a suggestion.

ANYTHING you read or hear has to be evaluated as to the intended meaning and part of that is judging how literally to take it. It's a problem inherent in speech and the written word. It is not unique to holy books. Someone gave the example "it's raining cats and dogs". Since that's such a ridiculous simile and common usage equates "cats and dogs" to "very heavily", basically no one beyond perhaps a small child would make the mistake of thinking for a hot second that the sky is disgorging itself of domesticated house pets.

Usually when we're a little less sure of the speaker or author's intent we can simply ask or refer to the broader context of how they habitually speak or write. But it's hardly an exact science.

Holy books did not CREATE this problem, but they LEVERAGE it. I've always submitted that holy books (not just the Bible) in order to be "timeless", must be able to adapt to various contexts, and as such, they are written to be full of stuff where the context is often not set up or clarified enough to make the author's level of (non)literalness implicit. This allows any random reader in any random time and culture to take from it whatever their preconceptions and presuppositions make them the most comfortable or speaks to some immediate need or desire. This is then modified and filtered a bit by the interpretational system of the religion, to knock off the rough edges a bit and resolve at least the biggest logical contradictions. This would be apologetics of the form, "that might seem intuitive but because of dogma A vs dogma B plus bullshit argument C it really means this other thing -- or is (not to be) taken literally", etc.

Holy books are templates for each religion (and in fact each sect or denomination) to flesh out their unique take on dogma. As an example, most of Christianity historically has left the signs and miracles related about the early church in the Acts of the Apostles in the realm of "not for today" -- things like speaking in tongues, sinners being struck dead where they stand, healings, even raising the dead, etc., are regarded as miraculous validation of the teaching of the apostles and early church fathers before there was an official canon of scripture (though not, oddly, before there were printing presses to disseminate it and widespread literacy to make disseminating it relevant). But the entire pentecostal / holiness / charismatic branch of Christianity turns on the notion, "what IF these things ARE for today?" which largely involves taking half a verse in Acts literally and universally where the church historically has said, well, obviously those things never happen so the aren't applicable today but are just inspiring campfire stories.

If one is very literal-minded because of being on the spectrum or just personality leanings and inclinations, they will tend to see things more literally but will be reigned in by the majority of fellow believers who will "correct" them.

If one questions or is skeptical of scripture being the inspired word of god, that has nothing inherently to do with which interpretational system and approved dogma they might be personally rejecting.

Atheism is not a thing-in-itself. It's just one of many side effects of skepticism and a rational, evidence-based approach to life. Liberal Christians who hold their faith relatively loosely and metaphorically can and still do turn to atheism.

So this notion that atheists are atheists because they take the Bible over-literally or impose literal meanings where it is "clearly intended" to be metaphorical is, I'm sorry to say, 97.2% bullshit.