Literalism and Autism

[Acrobat]

“Religious moderates are, in large part, responsible for the religious conflict in our world, because their beliefs provide the context in which scriptural literalism and religious violence can never be adequately opposed.” ― Sam Harris, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason

I just believe in whatever I find to be true. So should i not believe certain things are true, not because they're not true, but because they supposedly give context for religious violence?

In addition, I don't feel any responsibility for anyone's actions, other than myself, my family, and my community's.

[EgoDeath]

I just believe in whatever I find to be true. So should i not believe certain things are true, not because they're not true, but because they supposedly give context for religious violence?

In addition, I don't feel any responsibility for anyone's actions, other than myself, my family, and my community's.

I'm not telling you what you should or shouldn't do. I just said I liked Harris' view on the subject.

[GrandizerII]

I don't see where in this text it suggests allegory. The bit about the Sabbath suggests to me otherwise. Which bit suggests allegory?

I guess we'd need some criteria to help us discern allegory or other non-literal readings from literal readings.

There are a few that come to mind right away:

~ historical knowledge of how texts were used in those days

Which, afaik, we don't have for "those days". At least not conclusive knowledge.

~ the fact that the authors, while lacking in scientific knowledge, weren't idiots. So they knew, for example, that what they were proposing was not empirically grounded.

You don't need to be an idiot to be ignorant of later scientific facts.

Also, how do you know what they knew? Even if the authors did know, they may have still intended the passages to be taken literally.

~ the fact that according to various theories about when and where these texts were edited together, there may well have been political and ethical motivations that were not about literal explanations of the earth's origins. 

Political and ethical motivations don't preclude the position that the texts were intended to be taken literally.

Why should the bit about the sabbath seem more literal to you? Isn't it possible that the sabbath is important for spiritual and moral reasons, and that therefore a myth to emphasize those aspects would be desirable at the time?

Of course it's possible. It's also possible that the myth was an attempt to explain why Jews kept the Sabbath on the seventh day by appealing to what happened in history.

But unless we have commentaries at the time explaining the point of these passages, or we have conclusive evidence that the passages were meant to be interpreted a specific way, we can't be too sure either way.

[Succubus]

...At the same time folks like yourself, seem to suggest that you do recognize some parts of the Bible are not literal. Yet, you don't want to answer as to how you distinguish the literal from non-literal parts? Perhaps you take passages where Jesus refers to himself as a lamb, to be non-literal? If so why do you take that to be non-literal, but not passages about a tree, with a fruit of "knowledge of good and evil"?

Ok, have a go at these:

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.

Matthew 10:35-27
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." 

Of course the first one is true, its nice. The second one is obviously not true because...

[Belacqua]

Maybe it would make sense to give an example of an ancient text on non-literal interpretation of myths. This is pretty clear evidence that ancient people were comfortable with non-literal readings.

This is from the Phaedrus, in Wakefield's translation. The title character asks Socrates about a mythical event that was supposed to have happened locally. Then he asks if Socrates believes the myth. Socrates points out that the "experts" don't read it literally -- they give it a euhemerist reading. But then says he doesn't even care whether it's true or not; he reads myths as a way to know more about himself. This was written in about 370 BC.

Phaedrus: Tell me, Socrates, isn’t this or hereabouts the
place from where Boreas is said to have abducted Oreithuia
from the Ilissus?

Socrates: Yes, that’s how the story goes, anyway.

Phaedrus: Well, wasn’t it from here? At any rate, the water
has a pleasant, clean, clear appearance––just right for girls to
play beside.

Socrates: No, this isn’t the place. It’s about two or three
stades* downstream, where one crosses to go towards Agra.*
There’s an altar of Boreas somewhere there.

Phaedrus: I’ve not really noticed it. But tell me, Socrates, by
Zeus:* do you think this story is true?

Socrates: It wouldn’t be odd for me to doubt it as the
experts do. I might give a clever explanation of it, and say
that a gust of wind from the north pushed her from the
nearby rocks while she was playing with Pharmaceia, and
although this caused her death she was said to have been
abducted by Boreas––either from here or from the Areopad
gus,* since there’s another version of the story, that she was
abducted from there, not here. Basically, Phaedrus, although
I find these kinds of interpretations fascinating, they are the
work of someone who is too clever for his own good. He has
to work hard and is rather unfortunate, if only because he
next has to correct the way Centaurs look, and then the
Chimaera, and then there pours down on him a horde of
similar creatures, like the Gorgon and Pegasus and counte
less other extraordinary beasts with all kinds of monstrous
natures.*† If anyone has doubts about these creatures and
wants to use a rough-and-ready kind of ingenuity to force
each of them to conform with probability, he’ll need a lot of
spare time. As for me, I never have time to spend on these
things, and there’s a good reason for this, my friend: I am
still incapable of obeying the Delphic inscription and knowing
myself.* It strikes me as absurd to look into matters that
have nothing to do with me as long as I’m still ignorant in
this respect, so I ignore all these matters and go along with
the traditional views about them. As I said just now, I
investigate myself rather than these things, to see whether I
am in fact a creature of more complexity and savagery
than Typhon, or something tamer and more simple, with a
naturally divine and non-Typhonic nature. But anyway, my
friend, if I may interrupt our conversation, isn’t this the tree
you were taking us to?

Phaedrus: Yes, this is the one.

Socrates: By Hera, what a lovely secluded spot!

[Succubus]

Straight from the bible bullshitters handbook, when you've had your arse handed you on a plate start quoting long dead philosophers.

Edit: And bring up hermeneutics.

[Belacqua]

Matthew 10:35-27
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." 

Of course the first one is true, its nice. The second one is obviously not true  because...

That's the beginning of a hermeneutic method: to say that the nice ones are literal and the not-nice ones aren't. Personally, I don't find that method persuasive.

I think the passage from Matthew may well be literal, and I can be clear about the reasons.

It seems to me likely that the real Jesus was one of those holy men who radically give up the world and live in opposition to its traditions. There are still such men in India, and Greece had the example of Diogenes the Cynic and his followers. To recommend such extreme disconnection from the status quo would obviously cause a rift with one's family, if the rest of the family didn't go along. 

Later Christians watered this down, and now we're to the point where many American Christians advocate more or less the opposite of this. 

I understand that my interpretation can never be proven with certainty. But given what I know of the time and the rest of the NT, I think it is a plausible reading.

[EgoDeath]

Straight from the bible bullshitters handbook, when you've had your arse handed you on a plate start quoting long dead philosophers.

I'm nearly convinced he's a Christian and belongs to one of the popular Christian forums under another name.

[Belacqua]

start quoting long dead philosophers.

Edit: And bring up hermeneutics.

If we're talking about the intentions of long dead writers, it makes sense to read what they said about themselves. 

I didn't bring up hermeneutics. The whole thread is about hermeneutics, from the first.

[Succubus]

Straight from the bible bullshitters handbook, when you've had your arse handed you on a plate start quoting long dead philosophers.

I'm nearly convinced he's a Christian and belongs to one of the popular Christian forums under another name.

But where did he go wrong, he was never this way in the early days.