Hacker News Reader

Comment by pron | Hacker News Reader

> If the interpretation is valid, why don't they replace the scriptures with properly interpreted version which pin down the real meaning, once and for all?

Good question, which is thoroughly discussed and answered in various religious writings.

But I could ask you the opposite question: why would you assume that a text -- let alone an ancient one -- is anything but allegorical? Why would you assume that a text, by default, is literal until proven otherwise? Throughout history, there have been periods when it's been assumed that most written (let alone canonical and holy) texts are allegorical. It is your assumption that a text is literal unless proven otherwise which is recent and anachronistic.

In any case, whatever your views on human texts and their default literary genre, if you believe that a god wrote your scriptures, your interpretation of them would be based on the nature of your god and his preferred writing style, no?

View on HN

> It is your assumption that a text is literal unless proven otherwise which is recent and anachronistic.

Nope! My assumption is that the text is allegorical, and so please decide what the allegories are about and commit to an interpretation. Or else stop claiming that any of it is true, or the word of god, etc. You can't say, "these words are from god and they are true, and their meaning is [insert my subjective interpretation out of thin air]". I mean, if it were the were the word of god, how dare you even substitute your paraphrase? Oh right, you have divine inspiration---pardon me! God appeared to you one night and said, "here is what I really meant behind this paragraph".

Secondly, Christians literally believe the bulk of the New Testament: that Jesus really lived, was really the result of a virgin birth with God as the father, that he walked on water and so on. If you don't believe that material literally, you're a heretic. The latitude for allegoric interpretation is confined to the Old Testament. Literal belief in a large section of the Bible is not anachronistic at all; it is perfectly current.

> My assumption is that the text is allegorical, and so please decide what the allegories are about and commit to an interpretation. Or else stop claiming that any of it is true, or the word of god, etc.

That is a very Christian understanding of religion. I know a bit more about Judaism, and Judaism says that once the scriptures were given, they are open to interpretation and reinterpretation, and practical matters are decided by a majority (in accordance with the some framework around scripture -- which is viewed like a constitution -- and based on some deductive rules). There's even a famous (allegorical!) story in the Talmud where one rabbi is arguing with a group, and at one point God intervenes and says that the single rabbi is right, and the rest of the rabbis tell God that his opinion doesn't count anymore once Torah was handed to mankind[1].

Of course, polytheistic religions (like Shinto and some forms of Hinduism) are quite different, and others (like Buddhism and some forms of Hinduism) are not even theistic at all (and even in Judaism the concept of God is radically different from Christianity).

In short, when Dawkins says "religion", he really means "Christianity", because it doesn't seem like he has a clue about any other religion.

> Literal belief in a large section of the Bible is not anachronistic at all; it is perfectly current.

That is not what I meant by anachronistic (anachronism means placing an assumption, idea or object taken from one time period in another). I meant that today we assume most normative texts to be literal, but that was not the prevailing assumption when the bible was written.

[1]: http://jhom.com/topics/voice/bat_kol_bab.htm + Discussion: http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.co.il/2010/07/furnace-of-akhn...

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

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

I found this external overview of allegorical interpretation of the bible: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/1256-allegorical-...

For a more internal view, see the writings of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avivah_Gottlieb_Zornberg

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?

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.

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.

See my other comment (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...

I'm absolutely not confusing "monotheistic religion" and "Christianity", which would entail that I'm ignorant about the existence of all other monotheistic religions.

The topic is Dawkins, and his focus has been Christianity. In the submitted page, he's accused of closed-mindedness in that context.

A big part of Christianity is flatly believing things which are written in the Holy Bible, and so if we critically examine Christianity, that's going to be a big part of the argument. It's not an attack on the Bible as such, but its use by a group.

It may be that Judaism doesn't have this same "attack surface" due to its different treatment of scriptures. Scripture or not, followers of Judaism surely must have some common beliefs which can be articulated and examined.

> Scripture or not, followers of Judaism surely must have some common beliefs which can be articulated and examined.

Articulated -- definitely. Examined? I don't see how. How do you examine the belief that one should not light a fire on the Sabbath or that one should eat matzo on the first day of Passover? Jewish "belief" is simply accepting the obligation to follow a long set of rules. Prominent Jewish philosophers explicitly say that those rules have no purpose or consequence (though others disagree).

Is the YHWH character allegorical?

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

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yeshayahu_Leibowitz#Religious_...

[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maimonides#Negative_theology

If that's so then why should the Tanakh and Quran not be as instrumental in my life (as an atheist -- an "atheist Christian", if you must) as in a Jew and a Muslim's life respectively?

I don't know. I didn't say any scriptures should or should not be instrumental (I am an atheist myself). The question was about allegorical interpretation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com