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]

From the OP, and a good OP it is:

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

I s'pose only the original speaker will know if they're being disingenuous, but it sure seems a goofy way to go about debating.

Coming from the Deep South, where analogy is raised to an art form, I 'preciate such, but realize the difficulties involved. I'm sure guilty of using analogy myself, but hopefully the analogy is clear, and where unclear I hope I would immediately revert to clear and unambiguous language when asked to explain.

My experience on this site is that analogous language does often coincide with a moving of goalposts, and I lose any respect for those who do. I can't help but think if someone knew the truth about something, they'd just come on out and say it.

[Crazy Ivan]

analogy: an expression showing similarities between two things for the purpose of explaining or clarifying some unfamiliar or difficult idea or object by showing how the idea or object is similar to some familiar one.

My experience is that a father-son relationship is very complicated. "God" is a much simpler idea in comparison. Any real world scenario seems to be much more complicated than an idealized "father figure" with no shortcomings whatsoever.

[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.

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).

In poor debate analogies can be used to confuse communication, though in my experience non-theist are equally guilty of that as theist. In good debate analogies are an excellent way to explaining complicated ideas.

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.

[Crazy Ivan]

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

Debate is made "poor" through the use of analogies that can't be shown to simplify the issue, and only make it even more ambiguous and confusing.

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

How does one go about showing that "god" as a father, is less complicated than a human being as a father, which is what would make such an analogy useful?

[Zzyzx]

.

How does one go about showing that "god" as a father, is less complicated than a human being as a father, which is what would make such an analogy useful?

It appears to me as though "god as father" is a failed attempt to use a human-to-human relationship to allude to a relationship between humans and a supposed supernatural being. Since the proposed being is not understood, its relationships cannot legitimately be compared to human relationships.

Figurative and simplistic language used by ancient writers to describe what they thought the "god - human" relationships to be cannot, in my opinion, legitimately be used to describe those relationships (if they exist).

[Crazy Ivan]

.

How does one go about showing that "god" as a father, is less complicated than a human being as a father, which is what would make such an analogy useful?

It appears to me as though "god as father" is a failed attempt to use a human-to-human relationship to allude to a relationship between humans and a supposed supernatural being. Since the proposed being is not understood, its relationships cannot legitimately be compared to human relationships.

Figurative and simplistic language used by ancient writers to describe what they thought the "god - human" relationships to be cannot, in my opinion, legitimately be used to describe those relationships (if they exist).

Interestingly, at least one theist in this forum takes the next "logical" step in ambiguity, and states he sees "god as people". What the heck is that? Is that equivalent to "god is like people" or to "god is people"? Is "people" an analogy for "god", or is "god" a synonym for "people"? How in the world is a debate clearer when it gets to this point?

[Flail]

Good observations in the OP. I have found this to be the case at times as well. Perhaps figurative language and vague references are necessary, as are ritual practices, when credible evidence is lacking.

[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?

[Flail]

bjs wrote:

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

Scourge99 responded:

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.[/quote]
As a fiction writer and poet, I place signifigant 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.