" ... but doesn't that rather illustrate the diversity involved in the interpretation of scripture?"
Yes! It does. Rorschach blot, etc.
"If you want me to condemn irrationality as immoral, even when it's not linked to immoral deeds, then I just can't agree."
I am not asking for that. And I'm not arguing that a poor grasp of reason is a moral or political failing - though I suppose I could. I'm more directly focused on religious texts, and how they are used: as a source of inspiration and justification for one's beliefs/actions. What's my problem with that? It trains the religious to conflate interpretation and rational analysis. So your question is, how can I pass moral judgement on an intellectual failing, separate from any action taken as a result of that process?
I like to think of a religious text as the religious person's version of a handgun. Like a handgun, it is a powerful instrument that can be used for good or ill, depending on the morals of the user and how well they are "trained". One could say that religious moderates undergo thorough "safety training" when they are taught by moderate scholars how to interpret the religious text, and they strive to maintain a just and moral society despite the handicap that all kinds of odd things can be interpreted into existence from a different reading of that text.
There is a slogan regarding handguns that goes, "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Reza Aslan is making the same kind of appeal as the slogan, declaring that "religious texts don't prescribe behavior, people do it via the text."
And yet, the slogan is flawed: The gun clearly helps in the killing, and the convenience of the gun can influence the decision to kill in the first place. I think the same is true for a religious text: There is danger in the convenience of justifying one's actions with it.
In other words, when religious moderates justify their morally upstanding actions by interpreting scripture, they establish and reinforce the practice of justifying anything by interpreting scripture, including anything and everything endorsed by religious extremists. They enshrine that practice - perhaps even literally - and I believe that is quite irresponsible of them.
Just to be clear, I am in no way arguing for something like a ban on any religious text, as some people can (pretty strongly) argue for a ban on handguns. That would be completely counter to my desire to encourage rational thinking, and is one place where this metaphor breaks down. What I am endorsing, is the eradication of an attitude: The attitude that the religious text is divinely inspired, and as such, a selective interpretation of it can be elevated to the status of moral justification, sharing equal status with - or outranking - scientific facts or arguments from ethics.
no subject
" ... but doesn't that rather illustrate the diversity involved in the interpretation of scripture?"
Yes! It does. Rorschach blot, etc.
"If you want me to condemn irrationality as immoral, even when it's not linked to immoral deeds, then I just can't agree."
I am not asking for that. And I'm not arguing that a poor grasp of reason is a moral or political failing - though I suppose I could. I'm more directly focused on religious texts, and how they are used: as a source of inspiration and justification for one's beliefs/actions. What's my problem with that? It trains the religious to conflate interpretation and rational analysis. So your question is, how can I pass moral judgement on an intellectual failing, separate from any action taken as a result of that process?
I like to think of a religious text as the religious person's version of a handgun. Like a handgun, it is a powerful instrument that can be used for good or ill, depending on the morals of the user and how well they are "trained". One could say that religious moderates undergo thorough "safety training" when they are taught by moderate scholars how to interpret the religious text, and they strive to maintain a just and moral society despite the handicap that all kinds of odd things can be interpreted into existence from a different reading of that text.
There is a slogan regarding handguns that goes, "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Reza Aslan is making the same kind of appeal as the slogan, declaring that "religious texts don't prescribe behavior, people do it via the text."
And yet, the slogan is flawed: The gun clearly helps in the killing, and the convenience of the gun can influence the decision to kill in the first place. I think the same is true for a religious text: There is danger in the convenience of justifying one's actions with it.
In other words, when religious moderates justify their morally upstanding actions by interpreting scripture, they establish and reinforce the practice of justifying anything by interpreting scripture, including anything and everything endorsed by religious extremists. They enshrine that practice - perhaps even literally - and I believe that is quite irresponsible of them.
Just to be clear, I am in no way arguing for something like a ban on any religious text, as some people can (pretty strongly) argue for a ban on handguns. That would be completely counter to my desire to encourage rational thinking, and is one place where this metaphor breaks down. What I am endorsing, is the eradication of an attitude: The attitude that the religious text is divinely inspired, and as such, a selective interpretation of it can be elevated to the status of moral justification, sharing equal status with - or outranking - scientific facts or arguments from ethics.