Religion and Ambiguous Language

[katerinah1947]

Religion is neither science nor philosophy. And since Christianity is spiritual many concepts will appear ambiguous until the Holy Spirit reveals them to you personally. That is why Christ said "Ye must be born again" (which may sound ambiguous but it is a spiritual reality).

Hi,

Yes and science is Commanded by God to do, to those who are given information by The Holy Spirit.

That is subdue the earth in Genesis 1:28, yes only known by those it is revealed to.

Also Romans 13:1-5 is another in The Spirit type of revelation, it means to use the summary of Science as it appears in Government laws to understand God's decisions and ways also, for that which is not clearly spelled out in The Bible, or for those items that conflict with the Bible, like in the sun moving and not the earth, a Biblical understanding in 1600 or so.

LOVE,

 

[ananda]

Religion is neither science nor philosophy.

In early Buddhism, it's "religious" aspect is inextricably joined to science and philosophy. One possible understanding of the "Dhamma" is that which is Truth. So, to follow the Dhamma is to follow the Truth - in a sense, this can be religious, it can also be science, and philosophy, etc. all at the same time. It is following the nature of reality.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What's wrong with eternal -- no beginning and no ending? Would that suit you better?

That actually has some semblance of understanding...timeless doesn't really refer to that concept though. It's generally used when discussions occur about the location of god "outside" of our universe. Since time and space exist within our universe...the meaningless term "timeless" pops up to describe a god that doesn't exist within spacetime.

That may not sound like a big problem on the surface...but whenever I (or anyone else) asks for the meaning of "timeless" we end up hearing a rather useless definition. Something like "without time"...which doesn't actually tell you anything about the way timelessness works...it just tells you what it isn't.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Of course, of course. It SHOULD be so.

We are talking about Theology. Just like some people talked about Chemistry.

People in a special field of study tend to use professional jargons that are usually confusing to laymen.

The difference, off course, is that the chemist will be able to deconstruct his jargon into something that is understandable and meaningfull for the layman.

While the theologian will simply repeat its ambigous shenannigans and demand "faith" to be believed.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I'll mention Derrida on communication, where he said I could mean written paper, concussion, blow, passing of information etc. It was thought buy analytic types that context would stabilise the meaning of cummincations ( and I agree it does to an extent), and then he he deconstructed it with an academic presentation.

Another goodie of his was "I do not mix genres, I repeat: I do not mix genres". Implying that the repeat (reading, viewing) etc is not the first ofas the initial one...

So even science can be ambigouos. Add logic. I htink any formal languiiage etc has to be fefined in terms of everyday landuage at the outset.

 

[Resha Caner]

The OP is somewhat true, but it's not something unique to religious language. I doubt I'm the only one who has been asked, "What is that?" about some (non-religious) word and found myself struggling to give an adequate definition. The reason (as has been suggested in this forum several times), is that most language is learned by means other than sitting before a scribe handing out definitions. Most language is learned by experience and context - something very difficult to reproduce when asked for a definition.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The OP is somewhat true, but it's not something unique to religious language. I doubt I'm the only one who has been asked, "What is that?" about some (non-religious) word and found myself struggling to give an adequate definition. The reason (as has been suggested in this forum several times), is that most language is learned by means other than sitting before a scribe handing out definitions. Most language is learned by experience and context - something very difficult to reproduce when asked for a definition.

I don't know about that....

It seems to me that we have a LOT of words that describe things that none of us has (or even could) directly experience, yet we all know exactly what is being talked about.

A simple example: "atom".

Sure, we understand what "matter" is, as we are made of it and touch matter all the time, but "atom"?
Not really. "Electron" even less. "Photon" is something that common sense would dictate is completely ridiculous.

Yet all of us, even the most die hard creationists, know what is meant by that. Even if most of don't really understand the physics involved.

See, I think what the OP is getting it, as that for such words to have any meaning, they should actually reflect something in the real world.

Eventhough we can't "see", feel, touch, etc a photon - we all have a rough idea of what is being talked about. We all understand that the word is defined by an actual real particle in reality. Eventhough most of us, again, don't really understand the physics involved.


The problem with the ambiguous, abstract and borderline-poetic words used by theology and the religious in general, is that it is not clear at all, how the words actually relate to reality.

When people say "god is love"... it doesn't mean much. Because we understand that love is an emotion and that emotion is, ultimatly, brain chemistry. And when you ask a theist if they mean that "god is brain chemistry", off course they say "no".

When people say "god is energy"... it also doesn't mean much. Because we have physical definitions of what energy really is... And when you ask a theist "is that what your god is? radiation and heat etc?", then they say "no". And again we are left wondering what is being meant.

 

[Resha Caner]

A simple example: "atom".

No, no. I didn't say all words are difficult to define. I said most words are that way ... and maybe I overreached a bit to say that. Regardless, I will still claim many words are learned through experience and context. It's improper to selectively choose a concrete non-religious word and an abstract religious phrase. I can easily pick religious words that are very concrete and easy to define, such as "Christmas".

When people say "god is love"... it doesn't mean much. Because we understand that love is an emotion and that emotion is, ultimatly, brain chemistry. And when you ask a theist if they mean that "god is brain chemistry", off course they say "no".

Nor can you redefine religious context in order to make a phrase vague. Of all your choices, this is a poor one to pick at. The writer of that phrase had no idea of "brain chemistry", so you can't retroactively apply such things to the words. For example, the Hebrew use of "day" began at sunrise and ended at sunset and this time was divided into "hours" based on the length between sunrise/sunset. Therefore, "days" and "hours" varied over the year. To retroactively enforce a uniform 24 unit understanding on the Hebrew use of these terms would be erroneous.

Likewise with 1 John 4:8. Further, if ever there was an exhaustive definition of a word in the Bible, "love" is it. For example, consider 1 Cor 13.

When people say "god is energy"... it also doesn't mean much.

In this case I agree with you. I doubt you'll find that phrase in the Bible, and people who say it are indeed speaking nonsense. I'm not disputing that there is a lot of ridiculous stuff spoken in the name of religion. I'm not disputing that many do a poor job of explaining Christianity.

But that's a human thing, not a religious or theological thing. Some people have given me awful explanations of what they think is science.

 

[juvenissun]

The difference, off course, is that the chemist will be able to deconstruct his jargon into something that is understandable and meaningfull for the layman.

While the theologian will simply repeat its ambigous shenannigans and demand "faith" to be believed.

Absolutely wrong. You name me a theological term and I can "deconstruct" it for you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Nor can you redefine religious context in order to make a phrase vague. Of all your choices, this is a poor one to pick at. The writer of that phrase had no idea of "brain chemistry", so you can't retroactively apply such things to the words. For example, the Hebrew use of "day" began at sunrise and ended at sunset and this time was divided into "hours" based on the length between sunrise/sunset. Therefore, "days" and "hours" varied over the year. To retroactively enforce a uniform 24 unit understanding on the Hebrew use of these terms would be erroneous.

I completely agree. But that is exactly what the problem is imo...

If your words don't actually reflect real things in reality, or when it isn't clear at all what real things are being reflected, then all you got is this "poetic" and "abstract" stuff where it isn't clear at all what is being said.

What else can I say?

In this case I agree with you. I doubt you'll find that phrase in the Bible, and people who say it are indeed speaking nonsense. I'm not disputing that there is a lot of ridiculous stuff spoken in the name of religion. I'm not disputing that many do a poor job of explaining Christianity.

Sure, but you need to understand that for an "outsider" like me, there is no difference between statements like "god is love" and "god is energy".

In both cases, I have a concept in my head of what both "energy" and "love" is. And we have words for both, namely "energy" and "love". It doesn't make any sense to me to then add "...and that's what god is".

But that's a human thing, not a religious or theological thing. Some people have given me awful explanations of what they think is science.

I don't doubt that.

I'm just saying, for outsiders, you need to understand that most of theology actually sounds like that. They speak a lot, but say very little.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Absolutely wrong. You name me a theological term and I can "deconstruct" it for you.

See the OP for examples.

 

[Resha Caner]

If your words don't actually reflect real things in reality, or when it isn't clear at all what real things are being reflected, then all you got is this "poetic" and "abstract" stuff where it isn't clear at all what is being said.

You're not dismissing the poetic form are you? Poetry can say a lot.

If it's just the terms within the poetry you're struggling with, that can be addressed. I gave a reference for your example from 1 John 4:8. I assume you know the meanings of patience, kindness, etc. That is how "love" is being defined.

Further, don't take "God is love" to mean that's all He is. If I were to say DogmaHunter is patient, you wouldn't think I mean you exist only as the Platonic Form of patience would you? That would be a rather obtuse interpretation of language. The phrase simply means God perfectly exhibits all those characteristics that make up love.

I'm just saying, for outsiders, you need to understand that most of theology actually sounds like that. They speak a lot, but say very little.

Sure, I get that. But I'm willing to explain concepts, terms, etc. that you want to know about. I'd like you to be an insider rather than an outsider.

 

[Chris B]

Hi,
... only one thing scared me.

It is that words are not precise and never have been precise to everyone.
...Mary., .... .

But the observation is correct. It is, I suggest a matter of knowing about that imprecision and learning to handle it rather than either despairing of reliable communication or striving for impractical level of (near-) perfection.

And there are ways of increasing clarity and precision, though as they take up more time and effort it is quite normal not to employ them in simpler situations where a bit of ambiguity is unlikely or can't hurt much.
"Pass me the jug, please" is fine if there is only one jug in the room.
In a potter's shop it probably wouldn't serve.
That works exactly with the term "God" when the conversation is across cultures or across faiths.

The "shared term" can give the illusion of communication or agreement, and this is still used today, though not for any really good purposes:
I have a thought. I find the word or expression which best matches that thought, and pas you the *word".
You take the word and look up in your mind the thought associated with that word.
There is no great reason why the two thoughts should be the same.
For many common uses they will be close enough, but the more complex or precise the thought needs to be, the more anomalies or confusions will show up.
It's very much like signalling with flags. Works well if both ends have the same code book. The more disparate the code books, the more mess!

In one local society the code-books are going to be pretty similar.
From a different culture, time period or language (translated) the codes books can be very different.
Simple one. "Family" to me goes out about as far as first cousins and no further.
In an Asian society "family" usually carries a much more extensive and expansive idea.

It's an interesting world to try and gain familiarity with.

Chris.

 

[Dre Khipov]

Religion is neither science nor philosophy. And since Christianity is spiritual many concepts will appear ambiguous until the Holy Spirit reveals them to you personally. That is why Christ said "Ye must be born again" (which may sound ambiguous but it is a spiritual reality).

But again, it's incredibly ambiguous in terms of the mechanics to the point of it being somewhat meaningless. When you are making an appeal to Holy Spirit, you actually have to tell people how it works.

Does the Holy Spirit re-arrange the neurons in your brain? How does that revelation work? It's not clear at all.

 

[Dre Khipov]

I don't think that there are inherent problem with complex language terms and metaphors, as long as it's clear to everyone what these mean.

In science you have complexity that's standard across the board. When someone says "Planck constant", in science we understand what it refers to, and if one doesn't... one can look it up.

I think that someone here made an excuse about explaining transcendent ideas with "human language", but that's not the issue. Clarity and consistency is the issue.

 

[katerinah1947]

But the observation is correct. It is, I suggest a matter of knowing about that imprecision and learning to handle it rather than either despairing of reliable communication or striving for impractical level of (near-) perfection.

And there are ways of increasing clarity and precision, though as they take up more time and effort it is quite normal not to employ them in simpler situations where a bit of ambiguity is unlikely or can't hurt much.
"Pass me the jug, please" is fine if there is only one jug in the room.
In a potter's shop it probably wouldn't serve.
That works exactly with the term "God" when the conversation is across cultures or across faiths.

The "shared term" can give the illusion of communication or agreement, and this is still used today, though not for any really good purposes:
I have a thought. I find the word or expression which best matches that thought, and pas you the *word".
You take the word and look up in your mind the thought associated with that word.
There is no great reason why the two thoughts should be the same.
For many common uses they will be close enough, but the more complex or precise the thought needs to be, the more anomalies or confusions will show up.
It's very much like signalling with flags. Works well if both ends have the same code book. The more disparate the code books, the more mess!

In one local society the code-books are going to be pretty similar.
From a different culture, time period or language (translated) the codes books can be very different.
Simple one. "Family" to me goes out about as far as first cousins and no further.
In an Asian society "family" usually carries a much more extensive and expansive idea.

It's an interesting world to try and gain familiarity with.

Chris.

Hi,

To me, it is not so much that natural ambiguities and personal word definitions exist, it is that when ambiguities, and esoteric language can be removed by say the church in Roman Catholic communications with the rest of the world, no such translations exist.

The result is that what say, the Pope says and what the Pope means, among other church officials, is almost hopelessly lost to the parishioners and the outside world.

I spend some time normally, retranslating what is actually said, from what is in trade language, and assumed meaning of words by everyone, to the actual meanings and in the use of the common man's word definitions.

Hardly, should that be necessary, the use of trade language. It seems though, as I can find no normal reasons for that, the usage results in an isolation of the affected listeners, and a need for qualified interpreters, and a question of why anyone who is actually more educated than everyone else, would not make adjustments to a less educated audience, rather than demanding the less educated rise to their level of word usages.

Thus words like The Lord and my Lord in psalms 110, if it can be put in normal terms, it seems like it should be, The Lord there is God The Father, and my Lord there is God The Son, plus God The Holy Spirit caused those words to be said.

Rather, the above description of The Lord and my Lord are left in almost impossible to discern differences.

LOVE,

 

[katerinah1947]

In early Buddhism, it's "religious" aspect is inextricably joined to science and philosophy. One possible understanding of the "Dhamma" is that which is Truth. So, to follow the Dhamma is to follow the Truth - in a sense, this can be religious, it can also be science, and philosophy, etc. all at the same time. It is following the nature of reality.

Hi,

My hope is science, religion and philosophy can all combine, to Science which also allows for God and Philosophy, if the later two are done with proofs, and for each discipline to include the proven results of all the other fields, eventually.

God in the form of religion has been kicked out of science tto long, after say the Travesties of religion having persecuted Galieo and others like him, unfairly, and very much incorrectly.

Even today, religion is used to hurt science. The reverse, which is seen sometimes is also bad. Also, it seems people have even used philosophy to attack science incorrectly and dishonestly, but also it is used to attack religions also that way by some people.

It is in finding out where each is right, or even not provable yet, that each can progress to.....the future in more peace.


LOVE,

 

[DogmaHunter]

You're not dismissing the poetic form are you? Poetry can say a lot.

Not just "a lot". It can say just about anything the reader wants it to say. Which is exactly where that ambiguity comes from.

This is why you can have muslims who are absolutely lovely peace loving people on the one hand, and ISIS wonna-be-Rambo's on the other.

This is why you can have christians who spend their lives helping the poor on the one hand, and christians picketting at soldier funerals with signs that say "God hates ****"

If it's just the terms within the poetry you're struggling with, that can be addressed.

Would you say that if I ask several random christians to address it, that I'll get the same answer from all of them?

Further, don't take "God is love" to mean that's all He is. If I were to say DogmaHunter is patient, you wouldn't think I mean you exist only as the Platonic Form of patience would you?

In that case, I'ld expect the phrase to read "God is loving".

I realise that this is borderlining semantic shenannigans. However, the larger point here is that such "abstract" language is counter productive.

I just prefer clarity.

Sure, I get that. But I'm willing to explain concepts, terms, etc. that you want to know about. I'd like you to be an insider rather than an outsider.

That's the thing, isn't it?
You could give me all your explanations, but in the end, the only thing I'll receive will be your interpretations of the abstract language. Your opinions.

Other people will give me other interpretations and other opinions. And they'll be reading the exact same text.

That's kind of the thread topic. Ambiguity.

 

[Resha Caner]

Not just "a lot". It can say just about anything the reader wants it to say. Which is exactly where that ambiguity comes from.

That is an exaggeration and misrepresentation of poetry. People will misinterpret even the clearest of messages.

I just prefer clarity.

A wish that I predict will remain forever unsatisfied. Life isn't simple and answers aren't immediately clear.

That's kind of the thread topic. Ambiguity.

Something I have readily admitted to. It is sad, however, that ambiguity has led you to a place where you seem to no longer want to hear what anyone has to say. It feels as if you've reached a point where you dismiss people before you even ask a question.

Getting answers means engaging in the conversation. Yes, there is a lot of noise, but have you ever heard of Shannon's Theorem?

 

[DogmaHunter]

That is an exaggeration and misrepresentation of poetry. People will misinterpret even the clearest of messages.

So, are you going to deny that the "range of interpretation" in abstract statements and "poetry" is A LOT wider then the "range of interpretation" in pretty clear and straightforward statements?

A wish that I predict will remain forever unsatisfied

When it comes to clarity in statements within religious circles, you are probably right about that prediction. One of the many reasons I am an atheist.

Life isn't simple and answers aren't immediately clear.

The topic is religion.

Something I have readily admitted to. It is sad, however, that ambiguity has led you to a place where you seem to no longer want to hear what anyone has to say. It feels as if you've reached a point where you dismiss people before you even ask a question.

Einstein once defined insanity as "doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results".

I'm more then willing to anyone's explanations about anything. However, when certain trends are clear, it becomes kind of a waste of time to continue.

You have your opinions / interpretations and the christian next to you will have others. At times, radically different even. And then we have all the followers of all those other religions. And they all come up with the same kind of excuses that I find totally unsatisfying.

Getting answers means engaging in the conversation.

I had my answers concerning this topic a long time ago. And I haven't seen anything or haven't been presented with any arguments or reasons that force me to rethink those answers. In fact, I only see them being reinforced in threads like this.

I'm sorry, but I have no control over that.

When people supposedly from the same religion can't even agree on what their scripture says, how could I, as an outsider, ever be expected to side with either one of them?

This is why I always say "perhaps you should try to agree amongst yourselves first, before telling the rest of us that we don't get it..."

Yes, there is a lot of noise, but have you ever heard of Shannon's Theorem?

Yes.