4 ms·

I can't wait to read these complete, unambiguous, and mutually consistent religious writings. Links, please.

pron 11y ago
Why do they need to be complete, unambiguous and consistent? Religion isn't math (and even math isn't complete). It isn't physics either (and even physics -- and certainly its interpretations -- can be quite ambiguous). For a broad introduction to the subject, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics I found this external overview of allegorical interpretation of the bible: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1256-allegorical-interpretation http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1256-allegorical-... For a more internal view, see the writings of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avivah_Gottlieb_Zornberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avivah_Gottlieb_Zornberg
- kazinator 11y ago
  Where are the published results of biblical hermeneutics/exegesis? The text is of finite length and has been studied for centuries. When can we expect the, "okay, here is what it all actually means" report, signed off by all parties?
  - pron 11y ago
    Where are the published results of French cuisine? When can we expect the "okay, here is the final list of recipes"? Religion (and cooking) isn't science. It is a creative process of interpretation that is never supposed to end, and doesn't have the same goals as science at all. The goal of science is to understand the physical universe, the goal of cooking is to make tasty food, and the goal of religion is to try and answer how people should best live their lives and/or help them find meaning[1]. Publishing "results" to religion makes as much sense as writing a musical score to science (both could theoretically be done, but neither would help the discipline...) [1]: I am not saying religions do a good job at it, only that that is their goal.
    - kazinator 11y ago
      creative process of interpretation That is simply not true, and I suspect most biblical theists would brand you a heretic. The Bible is a very specific text with a specific content. It simply does not permit an infinite succession of creative interpretations: not for the purposes of believing those interpretations to be the meaning, let alone to be true. doesn't have the same goals as science at all It absolutely has some goals aligned with those of science: providing an explanation of the world (where it all came from). In fact, religion is basically an outdated form of science. Science doesn't have the goal of dictating how you should live (morals aren't facts), and doesn't provide hopes regarding anything beyond death (life after death conjectures have never been verified). neither would help the discipline Publishing results is what distinguishes a discipline.
      - pron 11y ago
        See my other comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10818113 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10818113). You're confusing "religion" (or even monotheistic religion) with Christianity. In Judaism, very early on (classical period, or middle ages at the latest) it was understood that the scriptures are not an exact description of the physical universe, and that the stories (like the creation story) must not be taken literally. In any event, once science came about, Judaism -- unlike Christianity -- didn't clash with it. But I guess I would still be branded a heretic on many other grounds...
        pklausler 11y ago
        Is the YHWH character allegorical?
        pron 11y ago
        That depends on what you mean by "allegorical" (it usually means "stands for something else", but in this case whatever that something else is, we can just call that "God"), but there's much discussion (and disagreement) about the role god plays in the physical universe, if any. Just to get a sense for Jewish theology, see this quote by rabbi David Hartman: "I never had a clear concept of God. As a people with multiple traditions and different strands, today we stand before a multiplicity of models and are expected to declare which one we identify with"[1] One of the greatest modern Jewish orthodox philosopher, Y Leibowitz[2] (who was a scientist, too; a professor of biochemistry, organic chemistry and neurophysiology), believed that the Jewish god is not even necessarily personal (in the sense that he possesses a persona). He said that all questions about the nature of god are meaningless and idolatrous. He believed that the only relevant question about god is whether it is an entity worthy of worship. I.e. God is "that which should be worshiped". He also believed that the relationship between God and man is completely one sided and consists solely of man worshiping god, which in Judaism means to observing Halakha. So to him, religion was definitely not an explanation of anything, but an obligation -- a discipline -- one chooses to take upon oneself (and the observance of that obligation = belief in God). Leibowitz believed that his views simply mirrored those of Maimonides', who called them (in the 12th cetury) "negative theology". Simply put, Maimonides said that there can be no contradiction between the truths which God has revealed and the findings of the human mind in science and philosophy (simply because the two involve different realms) [3]. He even said that one cannot say that God exists, but only that God is not non-existent (which echoes modern intuitionistic logic, which lacks the axiom of excluded middle). [1]: http://hartman.org.il/Blogs_View.asp?Article_Id=33 http://hartman.org.il/Blogs_View.asp?Article_Id=33 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshayahu_Leibowitz#Religious_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshayahu_Leibowitz#Religious_... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides#Negative_theology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides#Negative_theology

pron 11y ago

Why do they need to be complete, unambiguous and consistent? Religion isn't math (and even math isn't complete). It isn't physics either (and even physics -- and certainly its interpretations -- can be quite ambiguous). For a broad introduction to the subject, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics I found this external overview of allegorical interpretation of the bible: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1256-allegorical-interpretation http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1256-allegorical-... For a more internal view, see the writings of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avivah_Gottlieb_Zornberg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avivah_Gottlieb_Zornberg

kazinator 11y ago
Where are the published results of biblical hermeneutics/exegesis? The text is of finite length and has been studied for centuries. When can we expect the, "okay, here is what it all actually means" report, signed off by all parties?
- pron 11y ago
  Where are the published results of French cuisine? When can we expect the "okay, here is the final list of recipes"? Religion (and cooking) isn't science. It is a creative process of interpretation that is never supposed to end, and doesn't have the same goals as science at all. The goal of science is to understand the physical universe, the goal of cooking is to make tasty food, and the goal of religion is to try and answer how people should best live their lives and/or help them find meaning[1]. Publishing "results" to religion makes as much sense as writing a musical score to science (both could theoretically be done, but neither would help the discipline...) [1]: I am not saying religions do a good job at it, only that that is their goal.
  - kazinator 11y ago
    creative process of interpretation That is simply not true, and I suspect most biblical theists would brand you a heretic. The Bible is a very specific text with a specific content. It simply does not permit an infinite succession of creative interpretations: not for the purposes of believing those interpretations to be the meaning, let alone to be true. doesn't have the same goals as science at all It absolutely has some goals aligned with those of science: providing an explanation of the world (where it all came from). In fact, religion is basically an outdated form of science. Science doesn't have the goal of dictating how you should live (morals aren't facts), and doesn't provide hopes regarding anything beyond death (life after death conjectures have never been verified). neither would help the discipline Publishing results is what distinguishes a discipline.
    - pron 11y ago
      See my other comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10818113 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10818113). You're confusing "religion" (or even monotheistic religion) with Christianity. In Judaism, very early on (classical period, or middle ages at the latest) it was understood that the scriptures are not an exact description of the physical universe, and that the stories (like the creation story) must not be taken literally. In any event, once science came about, Judaism -- unlike Christianity -- didn't clash with it. But I guess I would still be branded a heretic on many other grounds...
      - pklausler 11y ago
        Is the YHWH character allegorical?
        pron 11y ago
        That depends on what you mean by "allegorical" (it usually means "stands for something else", but in this case whatever that something else is, we can just call that "God"), but there's much discussion (and disagreement) about the role god plays in the physical universe, if any. Just to get a sense for Jewish theology, see this quote by rabbi David Hartman: "I never had a clear concept of God. As a people with multiple traditions and different strands, today we stand before a multiplicity of models and are expected to declare which one we identify with"[1] One of the greatest modern Jewish orthodox philosopher, Y Leibowitz[2] (who was a scientist, too; a professor of biochemistry, organic chemistry and neurophysiology), believed that the Jewish god is not even necessarily personal (in the sense that he possesses a persona). He said that all questions about the nature of god are meaningless and idolatrous. He believed that the only relevant question about god is whether it is an entity worthy of worship. I.e. God is "that which should be worshiped". He also believed that the relationship between God and man is completely one sided and consists solely of man worshiping god, which in Judaism means to observing Halakha. So to him, religion was definitely not an explanation of anything, but an obligation -- a discipline -- one chooses to take upon oneself (and the observance of that obligation = belief in God). Leibowitz believed that his views simply mirrored those of Maimonides', who called them (in the 12th cetury) "negative theology". Simply put, Maimonides said that there can be no contradiction between the truths which God has revealed and the findings of the human mind in science and philosophy (simply because the two involve different realms) [3]. He even said that one cannot say that God exists, but only that God is not non-existent (which echoes modern intuitionistic logic, which lacks the axiom of excluded middle). [1]: http://hartman.org.il/Blogs_View.asp?Article_Id=33 http://hartman.org.il/Blogs_View.asp?Article_Id=33 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshayahu_Leibowitz#Religious_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshayahu_Leibowitz#Religious_... [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides#Negative_theology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides#Negative_theology