FMZ wrote:
Farkel's analogy of the parent does not feel complete to me... although it can be amended to make it a little more accurate. Sure, any parent that requires worship from their child or else is a twisted individual, but, no parent needs this. No parent needs their child to look up to them. But, take a look from the child's viewpoint. What if a child turned away from their parent (just like those "Adam and Eve" characters)?
Just as I predicted: here we go with another exercise in expanding metaphors and abusing this aspect of language/cognition. IMO, Farkel's analogy (metaphor) only shows that religious metaphors cannot be verified in any objective way. They are inconsistent and mutually exclusive by nature. No need to complete them. Farkel only shows that the metaphor is a magic wand (to use a metaphor) which helps you make things what you want them to be.
Using the Bible can you tell me if God has human-like emotions?
God is a mighty warrior.
God is a loving parent.
Yes he does.
No he doesn't.
Unverifiable anthropomorphic metaphors.
We can use metaphors. We cannot avoid using them most of the time. I have used a few dozens metaphors in this single post - and I can enumerate them if you like. There's nothing wrong with them as long as you have a way of confronting them with reality. If you can't verify them, then they may also be good for poetic purposes. But I think it is wrong to use an unverifiable metaphor to influence other people's behaviour or thinking. THe "Jehovah is a loving parent and thus we should worship him" kind of thing.
LT wrote:
Hence the believer's sensitivity. When you spit on someone's God you spit on another's personal parent...
I'm not sure who exactly spits on God on this thread (any hints?). I respect your right to personal beliefs, but I'd like to use your reasoning to prove my point, if you don't mind. It's actually more or less what I mean above.
You come up with this parent-child metaphor. You elaborate on it to make it fit your belief system, although there are alternative ways of elaborating on it - none of them truly verifiable. Then you imply that God is your parent and therefore even if we don't believe in his existence we should respect him just like we should respect your literal parents.
:: The parent analogy is a good one IMHO. In the first definition of worship, replace deity with parent and you'll perhaps get my gist. Parents expect love (even if they don't demand it), and don't expect that kind of love to migrate elsewhere. This is only natural, and for an example see how difficult it can initially be for a child to transfer love to a step-parent.
Just replace it, huh? As simple as that? And then what? Voila. We get the irresistable conclusion? Classic metaphorical fallacy.
It's a simple mechanism. First imagine what you'd like God to be like. Then find a good analogy from the real world to illustrate it. And then "just replace" the spiritual with the real world entity. Finally, begin to feel the power of similarity, feel compelled to follow the reasoning, and act accordingly.
Ok, I'm getting carried away, because the only action you demanded from us (using the unverifiable metaphor) was respect for your beliefs. IF you simply illustrated the way you feel about things, then fine.
However most of the time, religious metaphors are abused to make people believe that much more is required from them.
Heck, look at the Theocratic School thing. They emphasize the use of examples (metaphors), however lame they are. WHy? Because the speaker/preacher who has mastered the art of analogy can then divert the listener's attention from the real problems with the verifiability of a doctrine and focus on the fairy tale world of infinitely flexible metaphors.
And most such examples come with some strings attached. THat is to say, people are made to think that just because things seem to add up in metaphors, they should spend their lives living by the preacher's interpretation of these metaphors.
That's my problem with religious metaphors.
Pole
