The Bible and Shakespeare: a failed analogy

[Ray Moscow]

On her blog, Miranda takes down a segment of a really bad programme on the Bible:

Analogy fail (http://www.mirandacelestehale.net/?p=1495&cpage=1#comment-748)


Do I really have to spell out why this analogy does not work?
Really?

Apparently so: does anyone use King Lear as the basis of their religion, as the core of their faith, or as a moral guide? Does anyone deny scientific fact when it contradicts King Lear? Does anyone use their faith in King Lear as a justification for their bigotry, hatred, or oppression? Does anyone pray to King Lear? Does anyone worry that King Lear will sentence them to an eternity in hell for their sins? Does anyone think that King Lear is almighty, all-knowing, and omnipresent? Have people fought wars over whose interpretation of King Lear is the correct one?

Nope.

Wow. My jaw literally fell open when I read that. Utter and complete Analogy Fail.

[DMB]

I followed the link posted by Richard Dawkins to his article shredding Midgley, who needs to be shredded. http://cdn.cloudfiles.mosso.com/c114612/documents/2008/Reply_to_Midgley.pdf

Well worth reading, though perhaps of more moment to those interested in biology rather than religion. I just enjoyed it as an example of thorough academic dissection.

[DMB]

Mind you, one way in which the bible is like King Lear: they are equally fictional.

[Ray Moscow]

Mind you, one way in which the bible is like King Lear: they are equally fictional.

Yes, but most fiction is not misused to gain such power over people's lives.

If religious folks just said, "Well, of course we know this is just metaphor, but we like it," there probably wouldn't be that much to argue about on a practical level.

[DMB]

True, Ray. And Midgley is a basic pain in the arse. Misleading or irrelevant analogies are one of her weapons of choice. She likes throwing dust in people's eyes. I have never worked out whether she is deliberately dishonest or just obtuse.

[Ray Moscow]

True, Ray. And Midgley is a basic pain in the arse. Misleading or irrelevant analogies are one of her weapons of choice. She likes throwing dust in people's eyes. I have never worked out whether she is deliberately dishonest or just obtuse.

I liked Dawkin's comment about her on Miranda's blog.

[Politesse]

Apparently so: does anyone use King Lear as the basis of their religion, as the core of their faith, or as a moral guide? Does anyone deny scientific fact when it contradicts King Lear? Does anyone use their faith in King Lear as a justification for their bigotry, hatred, or oppression? Does anyone pray to King Lear? Does anyone worry that King Lear will sentence them to an eternity in hell for their sins? Does anyone think that King Lear is almighty, all-knowing, and omnipresent? Have people fought wars over whose interpretation of King Lear is the correct one?
I don't see how any of those things would make it more reasonable to interpret the Biblical Creation as a literal account. Analogies are not necessarily all-reaching, they are only meant to extend as far as the qualities they are comparing. If I call my mother "a wily fox", my metaphor is not a poor one because she does not have long furry ears. Given that both accounts were originally written as stories, not factual accounts of historical events, it is equally unreasonable to consider either work a literal account of something. So, it's a perfectly apt analogy. They don't have to be equivalent works in any other respect for it to work.

[Ray Moscow]

It's a poor analogy, because no one claims that Shakespeare has moral authority over our lives, or that his characters are real, supernatural beings who deserve and demand our devotion.

With the Bible, all these demands are mainstream.

[DMB]

It's a poor analogy, because no one claims that Shakespeare has moral authority over our lives, or that his characters are real, supernatural beings who deserve and demand our devotion.

With the Bible, all these demands are mainstream.

And frequently based on literal readings of it.

[Politesse]

It's a poor analogy, because no one claims that Shakespeare has moral authority over our lives, or that his characters are real, supernatural beings who deserve and demand our devotion.

With the Bible, all these demands are mainstream.

And this makes it rational to treat it as a literal account?

[Ray Moscow]

It's a poor analogy, because no one claims that Shakespeare has moral authority over our lives, or that his characters are real, supernatural beings who deserve and demand our devotion.

With the Bible, all these demands are mainstream.

And this makes it rational to treat it as a literal account?

Actually, I think it's quite reasonable/rational to take the Bible or Quran literally if one believes that it is somehow "God's word". It's natural to assume that God would be able to say pretty much what he wanted, accurately, in plain language.

It's only after people discover that the Bible or Quran contradicts reason or the available evidence that the allegorical interpretations come in, I think as a salvage operation. In this sense, biblical literalists are more rational than their liberal co-religionists.

If one realises that it's probably fictional to start with, there's not much need to fuss over interpretations or to invent more and more sophisticated models to explain away why the Bible is wrong.

[nygreenguy]

Actually, I think it's quite reasonable/rational to take the Bible or Quran literally if one believes that it is somehow "God's word". It's natural to assume that God would be able to say pretty much what he wanted, accurately, in plain language. As a JW I was taught that the bible was purposefully written allegorically because it was meant for the masses. We were taught almost the entire OT was like this (yet they still somehow thought the flood was real)

It's only after people discover that the Bible or Quran contradicts reason or the available evidence that the allegorical interpretations come in, I think as a salvage operation. In this sense, biblical literalists are more rational than their liberal co-religionists. Ive always agreed on this. It seems the liberals are being dishonest. Its like having to make 3 lies to cover up the first one.

For me, I could never have been a literalist. Ive always been "scientifically" minded, so I knew this was impossible. Then after years of being more liberal in my views, I realized I was only kidding myself. After being challenged on IIDB, I realized I was forced to make excuse, after excuse, after excuse.

If one realises that it's probably fictional to start with, there's not much need to fuss over interpretations or to invent more and more sophisticated models to explain away why the Bible is wrong. As a former theist, I must say this is easier said than done.

[Haswell]

Chris Hitchens is one of many who reckons if you are looking for morality and ethics and the human condition you would do well to read the great works of literature (including, at the forefront, Shakespeare) rather than the great works of fiction, like the bible.

[Politesse]

Even assuming the "God's Word" business, why would God want to write a technical manual about creating the universe? It's obvious the creation account is written as a poem. Who would read it and expect it to be literal? Or a morality story whose main characters are named "Lord" and "Human" and "the Mother" and "Serpent"? Divine or not, it's written like a story. So one would not naturally expect it to be a literal account of anything. You don't need to be a liberal to make the obvious assumption, here. It's bloody obvious that an allegory is involved.

And that of course is her point. You don't need a reason to assume that King Lear is not intended as a history book, even if it does concern historical figures- it is obvious from the outset that it is not. King Lear is self-evidently and intentionally written as a story, so historical acuracy doesn't even come into it. Ditto the Bible, which has at least four creation stories nestled in its pages, all of them written like stories, not like literal accounts of anything.

[Ray Moscow]

Most believers take their holy books literally unless they are taught by their authorities that they should be read allegorically. As I said, the allegorical approach is generally wheeled out as damage control.

An example is Origen's treatment of Genesis 1, which Origen rightly viewed as daft if taken literally. That hasn't stopped countless millions of Bible readers and scholars from taking it quite literally, though. Remember, nearly half the US population believes in a young earth -- based on this very chapter from the Bible.

That a contradicting creation story follows on its heels in Genesis 2 is not noticed by most readers -- they just assume that it's part of the same story, and they consciously or unconsciously harmonise it with the first story.

In general, if a literal intepretation seems to work, people go with that. It's the natural way to read any story.

Try this: if someone claims that Genesis is just an allegory, just say, "of course that means that doctrines of the fall, original sin, creation, the sinfulness of man, paradise and the subsequent doctrines of redemption, atonement, and so forth are just unsubstantiated ideas, too." If they agree with you, they really do read the Bible allegorically.

[Politesse]

It's not the most natural way, just the way that requires the least amount of thinking if you already tend toward literal-mindedness. As for those doctrines, if they follow from the story, I don't see why they need literal events to back them up. Doesn't Original Sin apply to all humans, for instance? So doesn't it make more sense to tell a story about what happened to Humanity than to some dude named Adam.

[Ray Moscow]

By "natural way", of course you mean the Tao, the principle of yin and yang inherent in all aspects of the universe? This is obvious by the following passage of "the least amount of thinking", as the Tao is not of the intellect but flows from the nature of its origin, wu ji, the source of the opposites.

"Literal mindedness" is an allusion to the yi, the spiritual mind. If the intent is clear, the mere words (ji) are cultivated into their true meaning (qi) which reaches the spiritual intent (shen).

Some simple folk might have thought you were talking merely about the Bible, but clever folks like me can see the Taoist wisdom implicit in your words.

[Politesse]

That would be a fair interp. of my post, I guess, except that I've set the "natural way" against the way of non-thinking, so it doesn't stand to reason that I was trying to refer to the same strategy with both.

But the Tao is another book that would be idiotic it take literally, even if the simple-minded person might try (and end up confused).

[mirandaceleste]

Thanks so much for posting my article, Ray! And sorry that I haven't been around here much lately. I've been ridiculously overwhelmed with teaching, etc.

Also, I think your posts in this thread are spot-on