What is the Religious Literalist Trilemma? 

I am a figurativist, which means I reject the first premise that scripture should be taken literally. However, what does it mean for something to be literal anyway? I'll take that literalism means that scriptures should be taken according to the most common usage of the meaning of the words of scripture. So whatever the scripture says, we must follow the most common usage of the words of the scripture, if it says to commit genocide, then we must commit genocide. However, literalism is problematic as if all scripture is interpreted according to the most common usage of the words, then it results in self-contradiction. If we are to accept that scripture is true, then literalism must be false, also including the fact that literalism stands condemned by science and secular ethics (I mean the acceptance of the second premise). Considering the truth of scripture, we must accept that there are parts of scripture which meaning is derived from the most common usage of the words i.e. literal, and there are parts of scripture which meaning is not derived from the most common usage of the words, instead it points towards a less common usage, i.e. figurative. Now how do we determine which is literal and figurative? There are 2 ways, eisegesis and exegesis. Eisegesis means to read the scripture according to what we believe, and exegesis means to read the scripture as the author means. Eisegesis is easy, but exegesis delivers the true meaning of the scripture even if it requires greater work in interpreting the scripture as one may be required to examine the historical context of that scripture. Now how does one perform exegesis? The answer is exegesis is often not done alone, but in groups of people, for example, the Church. To which point that it is possible that the intepretation of scripture becomes social eisegesis, but the synthesis of a group of people's beliefs is closer to the truth than the private and personal thoughts of a single man. That is all I have to say.

Big part of the video assumes the Bible deals mainly with propositions. It also seems to assume a modern reading or understanding the Bible according to modern assumptions about writing biographies, history, and narratives. So what’s the trilemma of modern, enlightenment, post-modern, deconstructionist, etc… ideological critiques;)

We should understand the texts in the contexts they were written in, which means using historical evidence to figure out what the authors were trying to do with their words. That means we can't just pick and choose which parts we want, and have to take things that were meant literally, literally, but also allows for thees complex multi-sourced historical amalgams to contain different kinds of literature to be taken in different ways. And regardless of how they are interpreted, the contents of such holy books are pretty much categorically either false, uncontroversially true (i.e. even the irreligious would agree), or literally meaningless.

The problem with holy texts lies not in how they are interpreted, but that they must be.

The scientific theory about how many animals can fit on a boat :D

Such a crazy topic because “literally” nothing else in life gets treated this way. Imagine seeing a Home For Sale sign and wondering whether the house is actually for sale or maybe the sign is pointing to some higher truth. Then repeat for everything on Earth lol

I am solidly in the Apostate camp.

Does it make sense to say something can be figuratively (but not literally) true? For example, if I say "God created the world in 7 days", but I *mean* "God created the world in 7 epochs of time*. Maybe this counts as truth-telling (I say x, I believe x figuratively, I want others to believe x figuratively), and what I mean to convey can be true, but the way I've conveyed it is merely figurative, so I'm not sure it makes sense to say the claim itself is true, as the claim is ambiguous - it's literally false, but when taken to me something other than it actually means, that other thing is true. But the conveyance itself isn't true!

6:00 Obviously the boat is bigger on the inside.

I think I'd have to deny P1. P2 I pretty much accept. For P3 I'm skeptical but wouldn't outright deny it; I'll concede that scriptures may have spiritual or other figurative truth (and maybe some but not all literal truth), but I'm not sure that this qualifies "truth" in as strong a sense as in the other claims. I guess I'm some sort of a "soft" figurativist then.

Idk there are some pretty big boats out there

The scriptures were intended as literal fact, putting a different spin on them is called apologetics. As they don't align with scientific knowledge and were intended to be literal then they cannot possibly be true. Therefore in the case of the Buy bull it should be referred to as The Wholly Fable!

I was raised a literalist, but have matured into a figurtivist. The key realization I have is on historical perspective. Moder day, we are indoctrinated with the scientific method of objective observations with applied logical consequences. Scientific Method is not the mode of thinking in an ancient oral culture (writing and text is limited), which many religions originated in. Does this mean that oral cultures just 'made everything up'? No, but assuming historical uniformity to modes of philosophy is a fallacy.

As an atheist who comes from a family with 3 generations of atheism my stance on religion probably isn't the most charitable. The way I look at the only way one could take their religion seriously is by taking ALL scripture of it literally. Otherwise you're just treating your religion like a buffet, selectively choosing to believe whatever is most convenient for you and deciding that the parts you don't like are just metaphor or unimportant. Thus, the only people who take their religion fully seriously are those who straight up deny all science that proves their religion wrong or modern ethics that condems horrific acts of barbarity and cruelty. And as as Carneades said, this is quite the bullet to bite. Sadly there isn't much I can or would even want to do with this point of view. As a dutch citizen I don't feel particularly threatened by the religious, and neither do I see any value in confronting the religious with my view on them. I'd rather just live and let live.

Is it meant to be written as figurtivist? Or is that a typo?

As an orthodox Muslim, I believe that this “trilemma” is false. Objection to P1: It is a false dichotomy to say scripture is either figurative or literal. Isn’t it possible for the scripture to explicitly mention that the following verse is figurative? It is possible. Furthermore, the prophet and scripture can clarify what is literal and figurative, so there is no need for cherry-picking. In conclusion, P1 is a false dichotomy. Objection to P2: Ignoring the fact that during the Middle Ages theists were at the forefront in philosophy, science, etc., and were inspired by their respected scripture, it is possible that you are being dishonest in interpreting a verse in a False way or taking them out of context (note: I am talking about Islam and don’t know about other religions). Furthermore, you can’t judge a scripture by another moral standard, what if a theist is a DCT? What if moral nihilism is true and there is no such thing as moral or immoral? There is no definitive consensus so far surrounding meta-ethics. However, I did like the discussion in the video, Thanks!

Actually, this is a strawman. Biblical literalists argue that the Bible should ALWAYS be taken literally... AS WRITTEN. In other words, the form of grammar used and the context are not to be ignored.

The first thing that we must look at is what do we mean by a literal meaning? Is it the meaning set initially to the words ? Or is it the meaning that is set by the usage of the word? I think that any text should be understood upon the laws of logic, laws of language and the context and property of the text itself, For the case when we can understand the text in both non metaphorical meaning and metaphorical meaning according to the language properties, then we have to look at logic , if there's no problem in the "non metaphorical meaning " then we go to the understanding of the first people whom accepted the text ! For the claim of contradiction with ethics, ethics is something relativistic! For the claim of contradiction with science, this can be looked in the following way Let's consider a holy book that is believed to be 100% from God - the paragraph A is understood in the B way - the science says C If B and C are not contradictory positions, then no problem If B And C are contradictory positions then: If B is the only way to understand A , and C is true 100% then A is false If B is the only way to understand A, and C is considered to be true but with a place to doubt, then B is to be taken true not C If B is not the only way to understand A, and C is 100% true then A must be understood as C if possible! If B is not the only way to understand A, and C is considered true with doubt, then that an open area to search

I am not a literalist, but the “ethics” part of “false according to science and ethics“ is problematic. For example, taking the Bible literally means how the South instituted slavery, with the slaves being like livestock, was wrong.

As a literalist, I do deny 2. Why? Because ethics has to be defined by the text and thus both are identical. A religious text claims itself to be universal ethics. An outside ethics is defined by something else, whether another religious text or another subjective method. Science, rightfully understood, does not deny any religious claims, for example, to claim any age of the earth, whether 6000 years or billions of years **requires** time travel to fully be scientific, as the scientific method requires direct observation to confirm the hypothesis' truthfulness, and no confirmation power can be had without actually experiencing things.

There is no trilemma. The Bible is in some sense literal, in some sense symbolic, in some sense metaphorical, in some sense poetic, in some sense allegorical. Such has long been recognized and accepted. Nice strawmaning, with a little bit of presentism and chronological snobbery to boot. And of course let’s not forget the false dilemma.

The Bible is composed supernatural gnosis, plagiarized allegory, biased and flawed historical accounts, and metaphors among other literary techniques. Taking any one the positions in this trilemma is wrong. Solution: P1) Not all the scriptures should be taken literally. P2) If scripture contradicts ethics it should be adjusted. If scripture contradicts science, then either use science (monism) and mysticism (dualism, trinitarianism) in tandem, or sacrifice mysticism for science. P3) The scriptures have already been proven false many times. They cannot be infallibly true. Scripture can be inspired by God/the Gods and still be flawed. A child can be "inspired" by a dog to draw a picture of a dog, yet the quality of the drawing will suffer for the child's lack of skill, knowledge, understanding, etc.

I’m a partial literalist when reading the Bible. There are metaphors and figurative language. For example Jesus said that He is the Lamb of God but we all know that this is in reference to Him suffering for us. Atheists hate post below 👇