Why do Christians debate using figurative language?

[scourge99]

Figurative language is used in many areas:
- poetry (love is like a rose)
- science (Galileo explained the motion of the earth by using the image of a ship)
- fiction


I have noticed that theists use figurative language profusely. Jesus parables, prophecies, and even for mundane explanations such as father/son relationships. These things are often littered in nearly every debate and discussion.

Figurative language, specifically, analogical language is appropriate and useful in many areas. However, within debate, analogical language is inadequate when unaccompanied by a direct explanation. Without an accompanying explanation for the analogy, readers cannot verify that their interpretation is the same as the writers intent, unless specified.

In my opinion, some debaters (particularly theists) deliberately use analogical language to:
1) be inexact, nebulous, vague - if a claim or argument can be interpreted by readers in multiple ways then the writer can lay claim to any, all, or none of the interpretations. This allows the writer to perpetually "move the goal posts" by avoiding commitment to any explicit position or claim.
2) supplement sophistry and hide ignorance - analogical language is sometimes used by those who are "debating on the fly". That is, many times we do not understand or have not thought through our argument or position thoroughly. Nonetheless, we often have a general idea or notion for that which we wish to express. This sometimes results in presenting similar but inexact ideas as we stumble and make guess-and-check arguments as we "feel out" our position. Oftentimes, examples and analogical language are used in this process.

3) Hide otherwise obvious errors or flaws - analogical language is an exceptional tool that can be used to hide the flaws and errors within an argument or claim.

For example:
Person A: Gods laws should be obeyed.
Person B: why?
Person A: because god is your father. Just as your parents laid down rules for you, to protect you because they loved you, god lays down rules for his children to follow.

Question for debate: is it disingenuous to debate using analogical language without providing an accompanying interpretation or explanation?

[JoeyKnothead]

As a fiction writer and poet, I place significant value on the appropriate use of comparative analogies including parable and metaphor. When it comes to claiming and supporting a premise for absolute truth however, they are often used inappropriately when actual evidence is lacking to make the point. Some of the metaphoric comparisons attempted by some writers here are ludicrous, ill conceived and pointless. When there is no evidence for apples, don't debate me with oranges.

Well said.

How 'bout that John Edwards guy that was on TV? So definitionally vague they use a picture of him in the dictionary. I've come to pity the desperation and go to questioning the intelligence of the one's that do fall for it.

Having been cursed by marriage and more than a few rocky relationships, I know all too well that when asked about the date, time, bar and "whore of the month*" I've been bothering about, I will be as frustrating to decipher as the circumstances and my lack of sober allows. Let's go on and say I'm no better'n ol' Johnny there, but this is debate, not hoodoo or whatever y'all call it where y'all are from. So...

If only to avoid any -ahem- illusion of guilt by 'the scoundrel sure finds it useful', I wouldn't try to debate by broad, vague analogy alone. At some point in our debates a clear and unambiguous answer just may settle the whole thread, and we can all go to arguing about the next'n.

(*actual quote from an ex old lady)

[Woland]

In my reasonably extensive "Internet and real life debating of Christianity" experience, many Christians -especially fundamentalists- very often use invalid analogies in failed attempts to justify things which, in my view, are unjustifiable.

The best example of this is when Christians compare Hell (the eternal torture variety) to "parents spanking their children when they misbehave".

This is a failed analogy if I've ever seen one, and to tell you the truth, it really freaks me out that so many people are able to rationalize eternal torture by comparing it to parents disciplining their child. I've seen innumerable Christians try this analogy.

Other examples for which ridiculously inadequate analogies are often given: the bears mauling down children, the flood genocide and ecocide, etc.

The most annoying part is that when I point out to Christians why their analogies are inadequate and irrelevant to the topic being discussed and to the advancement of their position, they very rarely acknowledge that this is the case.

I mean very rarely.

-Woland

[bjs]

Symbolism and analogies have always been a part of philosophical debate, going back at least as far as the discussions of Socrates and Plato.

While I grant that analogies are never perfect, in a high quality debate they are an effective means of communicating complex ideas.

I agree bjs. Figurative language is effective... when used appropriately. Perhaps you did not notice but I am not criticizing the use of figurative language in general. I am criticizing the use of figurative language when it is barren of an accompanying explanation/interpretation when the figurative language is ambiguous and vague.

After all, the opening statement includes the line, “This allows the writer to perpetually "move the goal posts" by avoiding commitment to any explicit position or claim.� In that statement “move the goal posts� is analogical language (unless you mean that people are literally out on a football field moving large goal posts around).

"Moving the goalposts" is a well known idiom. It is defined and easy to look up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

1) Do you require me to elaborate on what is meant when I use this idiom?
2) Are my statements using the idiom ambiguous or vague based on context and the limited definitions for "moving the goal posts"?

In poor debate analogies can be used to confuse communication, though in my experience non-theist are equally guilty of that as theist.

I agree that non-theists can be guilty of committing such faults. In no way have I implied otherwise. However, In my experience theists, especially one's who self identify as "spiritual--rather than religious--are often the one's guilty of this. Perhaps your experiences differ.

In good debate analogies are an excellent way to explaining complicated ideas.

I agree. But once again you have apparently misunderstood or forgotten what this thread is about. It is not about criticizing the use of figurative language, it is about criticizing the use of figurative language when it is devoid of an accompanying interpretation/explanation.

Joey has astutely pointed out that this criticism is invalid if readers do not find the figurative language convoluted, ambiguous, or vague in supporting the writers claims.

Both theist and non-theist could cut analogies from our writings, but the end result would likely be longer, dryer, more confusing and less interesting posts.

I agree. Figurative language brings writing to life and makes it interesting to read. However, debaters must be careful to ensure that the use of figurative language does not cause their arguments to become ambiguous and vague.

Do you believe that intentionally making ambiguous, unclear, or convoluted arguments is appropriate and acceptable within a debate?

I guess my confusion comes from what makes a good or bad use of figurative language.

The opening statement presents an example of a bad use of figurative language. It was:
Person A: Gods laws should be obeyed.
Person B: why?
Person A: because god is your father. Just as your parents laid down rules for you, to protect you because they loved you, god lays down rules for his children to follow.

I’m not sure what the problem is. An explanation for the analogy is provided. Person B is not saying that God is like a human father in every way. He says that God is like a father in the sense that He lays down rules for His children out of love and that His rules are for the good of those who follow them.

It was a specific, limited, and clear-cut analogy. If Person B just said, “Because God is your father,� then the metaphor would have been meaningless. As it stands an interpretation was provided. So what is the problem?

[teganz]

Great discussion. This video by Breakpoint’s Centurion Program might be of interest to you to learn more about Christian Worldviews:

What is a worldview?
[/url]http://www.breakpoint.org/resources/cen ... videos[url]

Tegan Z., Advocate of the Centurions Program[/url]

[Guest]

Figurative language is used in many areas:
- poetry (love is like a rose)
- science (Galileo explained the motion of the earth by using the image of a ship)
- fiction


I have noticed that theists use figurative language profusely. Jesus parables, prophecies, and even for mundane explanations such as father/son relationships. These things are often littered in nearly every debate and discussion.

Figurative language, specifically, analogical language is appropriate and useful in many areas. However, within debate, analogical language is inadequate when unaccompanied by a direct explanation. Without an accompanying explanation for the analogy, readers cannot verify that their interpretation is the same as the writers intent, unless specified.

In my opinion, some debaters (particularly theists) deliberately use analogical language to:
1) be inexact, nebulous, vague - if a claim or argument can be interpreted by readers in multiple ways then the writer can lay claim to any, all, or none of the interpretations. This allows the writer to perpetually "move the goal posts" by avoiding commitment to any explicit position or claim.
2) supplement sophistry and hide ignorance - analogical language is sometimes used by those who are "debating on the fly". That is, many times we do not understand or have not thought through our argument or position thoroughly. Nonetheless, we often have a general idea or notion for that which we wish to express. This sometimes results in presenting similar but inexact ideas as we stumble and make guess-and-check arguments as we "feel out" our position. Oftentimes, examples and analogical language are used in this process.

3) Hide otherwise obvious errors or flaws - analogical language is an exceptional tool that can be used to hide the flaws and errors within an argument or claim.

For example:
Person A: Gods laws should be obeyed.
Person B: why?
Person A: because god is your father. Just as your parents laid down rules for you, to protect you because they loved you, god lays down rules for his children to follow.

Question for debate: is it disingenuous to debate using analogical language without providing an accompanying interpretation or explanation?

The Bible itself is very much "figurative" by your definition of "figurative." Much of it was even written in prose form, like Job and, of course, Psalms. Some of it translated better than others in order to get it into English. I dont see it as disingenuous, but I suppose there could be a better effort to verbalize and define...and I address that to BOTH sides. If one side was blue and the other side red, it would be helpful if the blue made and effort to understand from where the red is coming from, and vice versa. IMHO


Using the Bible. it is clear that not only CAN it be interpreted various ways, but that it IS interpreted various ways. The CAN may be unnecessary to debate, but the IS cannot be avoided.

[scourge99]

Symbolism and analogies have always been a part of philosophical debate, going back at least as far as the discussions of Socrates and Plato.

While I grant that analogies are never perfect, in a high quality debate they are an effective means of communicating complex ideas.

I agree bjs. Figurative language is effective... when used appropriately. Perhaps you did not notice but I am not criticizing the use of figurative language in general. I am criticizing the use of figurative language when it is barren of an accompanying explanation/interpretation when the figurative language is ambiguous and vague.

After all, the opening statement includes the line, “This allows the writer to perpetually "move the goal posts" by avoiding commitment to any explicit position or claim.� In that statement “move the goal posts� is analogical language (unless you mean that people are literally out on a football field moving large goal posts around).

"Moving the goalposts" is a well known idiom. It is defined and easy to look up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

1) Do you require me to elaborate on what is meant when I use this idiom?
2) Are my statements using the idiom ambiguous or vague based on context and the limited definitions for "moving the goal posts"?

In poor debate analogies can be used to confuse communication, though in my experience non-theist are equally guilty of that as theist.

I agree that non-theists can be guilty of committing such faults. In no way have I implied otherwise. However, In my experience theists, especially one's who self identify as "spiritual--rather than religious--are often the one's guilty of this. Perhaps your experiences differ.

In good debate analogies are an excellent way to explaining complicated ideas.

I agree. But once again you have apparently misunderstood or forgotten what this thread is about. It is not about criticizing the use of figurative language, it is about criticizing the use of figurative language when it is devoid of an accompanying interpretation/explanation.

Joey has astutely pointed out that this criticism is invalid if readers do not find the figurative language convoluted, ambiguous, or vague in supporting the writers claims.

Both theist and non-theist could cut analogies from our writings, but the end result would likely be longer, dryer, more confusing and less interesting posts.

I agree. Figurative language brings writing to life and makes it interesting to read. However, debaters must be careful to ensure that the use of figurative language does not cause their arguments to become ambiguous and vague.

Do you believe that intentionally making ambiguous, unclear, or convoluted arguments is appropriate and acceptable within a debate?

I guess my confusion comes from what makes a good or bad use of figurative language.

If you can't convert your figurative language into non-figurative language, then that's a big hint.
The use of analogical language is not a substitute for a direct argument. At best its an artistic and creative way of explaining some aspect or perspective of your argument. In general, bad use of analogical language is when your readers cannot understand the direct argument you are making.

I’m not sure what the problem is. An explanation for the analogy is provided. Person B is not saying that God is like a human father in every way. He says that God is like a father in the sense that He lays down rules for His children out of love and that His rules are for the good of those who follow them.

Are you sure that is what I meant by the analogy or is that merely your interpretation of it?

It was a specific, limited, and clear-cut analogy. If Person B just said, “Because God is your father,� then the metaphor would have been meaningless. As it stands an interpretation was provided.

Criticism of the analogy:
1) inexact, nebulous vague - it is unclear what the direct argument for the support of the argument is. Many interpretations can be derived.
i) gods laws should be obeyed because God like your father is an authority figure and authority should be obeyed.
ii) Gods laws should be obeyed because god like your father knows better than you when you were a child. E.G., looking both ways before crossing the street.
iii) Gods laws should be obeyed because god like your father is like a authoritarian dictator. If you violate his rules then you'll pay the consequences.
iv) I could do this all day.
2) supplement sophistry and hide ignorance - E.G., I thought up one of those interpretations above after I wrote the OP because it suited my argument, though you'd never know that I changed my interpretation of the analogy unless I told you.
3) Hide otherwise obvious errors or flaws - E.G., why should God be worshiped and obeyed even if he is God? Appeals to authority are fallacious.

[scourge99]

Figurative language is used in many areas:
- poetry (love is like a rose)
- science (Galileo explained the motion of the earth by using the image of a ship)
- fiction


I have noticed that theists use figurative language profusely. Jesus parables, prophecies, and even for mundane explanations such as father/son relationships. These things are often littered in nearly every debate and discussion.

Figurative language, specifically, analogical language is appropriate and useful in many areas. However, within debate, analogical language is inadequate when unaccompanied by a direct explanation. Without an accompanying explanation for the analogy, readers cannot verify that their interpretation is the same as the writers intent, unless specified.

In my opinion, some debaters (particularly theists) deliberately use analogical language to:
1) be inexact, nebulous, vague - if a claim or argument can be interpreted by readers in multiple ways then the writer can lay claim to any, all, or none of the interpretations. This allows the writer to perpetually "move the goal posts" by avoiding commitment to any explicit position or claim.
2) supplement sophistry and hide ignorance - analogical language is sometimes used by those who are "debating on the fly". That is, many times we do not understand or have not thought through our argument or position thoroughly. Nonetheless, we often have a general idea or notion for that which we wish to express. This sometimes results in presenting similar but inexact ideas as we stumble and make guess-and-check arguments as we "feel out" our position. Oftentimes, examples and analogical language are used in this process.

3) Hide otherwise obvious errors or flaws - analogical language is an exceptional tool that can be used to hide the flaws and errors within an argument or claim.

For example:
Person A: Gods laws should be obeyed.
Person B: why?
Person A: because god is your father. Just as your parents laid down rules for you, to protect you because they loved you, god lays down rules for his children to follow.

Question for debate: is it disingenuous to debate using analogical language without providing an accompanying interpretation or explanation?

The Bible itself is very much "figurative" by your definition of "figurative." Much of it was even written in prose form, like Job and, of course, Psalms. Some of it translated better than others in order to get it into English. I dont see it as disingenuous, but I suppose there could be a better effort to verbalize and define

My criticism is regarding the arguments of debaters, not the Bible. The ambiguous and vague figurative language of the Bible is not a concern of mine in this thread.

and I address that to BOTH sides. If one side was blue and the other side red, it would be helpful if the blue made and effort to understand from where the red is coming from, and vice versa. IMHO

Is your use of an analogy in a thread critical of the use of analogies an attempt at irony or can you just not help yourself?:D

Using the Bible. it is clear that not only CAN it be interpreted various ways, but that it IS interpreted various ways. The CAN may be unnecessary to debate, but the IS cannot be avoided.

As long as debaters present their interpretation of the Bible clearly and unambiguously then I have no complaints.