Intellectually dishonest?

[Willamena]

So those who accept as literal the supernatural claims of their religion are wrong to do so? Why?

IMO not "wrong," per se; but things make more sense when the symbolism is recognized, to those who recognize it.

Because you said so?

Or because the entire research field of study called Comparative Mythology suggests so. Take your pick.

What then should they take away from these supernatural claims? Were the writers of these claims expecting their highly uneducated audience of goat herders to be able to decipher what was to be taken as literal and what wasn’t?

Not everyone is going to "get" it, not without some background. On the other hand, those goat herders likely had more background to understand it than we do. They were immersed in the culture that created the imagery and symbolism.

If the example of a virgin giving birth is too inexact for your taste, substitute walking on water, turning it to wine or creating man from dirt.

All can be taken metaphorically: as the conscious mind giving birth to the things that create it (virgin giving birth); as an awareness of the world as ocean, and yourself, your life, washed alive upon its waves (movement on the waters); as literal words turned into something much more satisfying and meaningful (plain water to rich wine); and as man as a "thing," one thing extant from the material unity that is Carl Sagan's "star stuff".

 

[Jeremiah]

Including the possibility that there's an invisible green lemon sitting on your shoulder and dictating your every thought and action?

It's funny how close your green lemon resembles the brain.

Living organism, on shoulders, controlling thought and action.

Great thanks, now I am going to have to ponder the meaning of free will.

 

[doppelganger]

Great thanks, now I am going to have to ponder the meaning of free will.

I you "have" to, then isn't it already pondered?

 

[LogDog]

Does a metaphorical interpretation of supernatural claims mean that there really never was a virgin birth and that in reality, Mary got knocked-up the old fashioned way? If this is the case, who’s the Daddy? Does a metaphorical interpretation mean that nobody really rose from the dead and that walking on water is as impossible as it sounds? What? If you take a metaphorical interpretation, what remains that can be described as being supernatural? It seems like mental gymnastics to me. Explaining away those things that would require intellectual dishonesty by accepting them through some sort of metaphorical interpretation.

 

[doppelganger]

Does a metaphorical interpretation of supernatural claims mean that there really never was a virgin birth and that in reality, Mary got knocked-up the old fashioned way?

What "really" happened is largely irrelevant in the realm of metaphor, mythology and meaning (the "Three M's"), and imagining one can determine the "real truth" with any reasonable probability is probably a fool's errand.

In short. I don't know, but it's irrelevant to me because I understand the story as creative mythology, metaphorical fiction - art.

 

[Jeremiah]

I you "have" to, then isn't it already pondered?

:help:

 

[LogDog]

I understand the story as creative mythology, metaphorical fiction - art.

If it's all metaphorical fiction does that mean you think the god of the bible is nothing more than a fictitious character fabricated in the mind of some creative writer?

 

[Jaymes]

It's funny how close your green lemon resembles the brain.

Living organism, on shoulders, controlling thought and action.

Great thanks, now I am going to have to ponder the meaning of free will.

No, you see, this invisible green lemon is completely undetectable by science. It's definitely on your shoulder dictating your every thought and action, though.

 

[logician]

Is there any degree of intellectual dishonesty involved in accepting as "Truth" supernatural claims that can't be proven?

Despite all the lowbrow insulters on here, there certainly is some level of intellectual
dishonesty in accepting as truth ANYTHING that is unproven. Science requires proof for any theory that is posited for it to have some merit. Maybe on some emotional level accepting unproven facts as truth makes said person feel better, but it is not honest on an intellectual level.

 

[Jeremiah]

I guess if I consider myself the lemon as in the controlling agent than free will is a possibility.

 

[Jeremiah]

No, you see, this invisible green

I do not see any invisible green lemon....

 

[Willamena]

Does a metaphorical interpretation of supernatural claims mean that there really never was a virgin birth and that in reality, Mary got knocked-up the old fashioned way? If this is the case, who’s the Daddy?

At the risk of repeating what was said in a post above mine, it doesn't matter if it really happened if what is important to me is what it means to me. I know there are some who would object to this, but they are not seeing it the same way.

Does a metaphorical interpretation mean that nobody really rose from the dead and that walking on water is as impossible as it sounds? What? If you take a metaphorical interpretation, what remains that can be described as being supernatural?

Oh! Good question, because "supernatural" too takes on a non-literal meaning. Most, it seems, interpret "supernatural" as being (big voice) "forces from beyond" that "intrude on our world," or some such thing. Or magic. But when your understanding is that both "natural" and "supernatural" have the same source, it's not quite so scary. The supernatural element in Jesus' turning wine into water is a spiritual one, that is to say how the "spirit" is moved by what was understood. Same with the birth of the holy child. Have you ever heard a Christmas carol sung by a choir on a cold winter's night that "moved" you and sent a shiver down your spine? That's the kind of "movement" that can be non-literally interpreted as the spirit walking. Of course, there are other interpretations - as many as there are people who interpret, multiplied by the times they exercise that ability. Every non-literal interpretation is unique-case, applicable to what is important in that moment of time.

It seems like mental gymnastics to me. Explaining away those things that would require intellectual dishonesty by accepting them through some sort of metaphorical interpretation.

It's the most natural mental gymnastics that man exercises. We do it everyday. Poets do it for a living.

 

[Jaymes]

I do not see any invisible green lemon....

That'd be because it's invisible and undetectable by science.

 

[Jeremiah]

That'd be because it's invisible and undetectable by science.

Undetectable by science? Well that's all the proof I need....Long live the lemon!

 

[doppelganger]

If it's all metaphorical fiction does that mean you think the god of the bible is nothing more than a fictitious character fabricated in the mind of some creative writer?

The character is a symbol. As a symbol it represents "something."

 

[Booko]

That is generally how I work yes.

Well, it's good to be open-minded Jeremiah, but don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out.

If you would truly give more than a nanosecond's thought to the idea that an invisible green lemon is sitting on your shoulder dictating your thoughts and actions, how do you find time to mow the lawn?

 

[Jeremiah]

Well, it's good to be open-minded Jeremiah, but don't be so open-minded that your brains fall out.

If you would truly give more than a nanosecond's thought to the idea that an invisible green lemon is sitting on your shoulder dictating your thoughts and actions, how do you find time to mow the lawn?

My faith in Atheism keeps me grounded.

 

[UnTheist]

Does that mean you can be amused by nothing? :biglaugh:

I'm dead inside. (lol jk)

 

[LogDog]

The character is a symbol. As a symbol it represents "something."

Would you identify yourself as a "Somethingist"?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Is there any degree of intellectual dishonesty involved in accepting as "Truth" supernatural claims that can't be proven?

Calling something "true" is merely labeling something according to a list of other labels. It is symbolizing symbols that appear accurate within a specific framework. "Proof" is an acceptance of evidences that are validated by an individual or a group working within a specific framework.

(Am I a "somethingist"?)