The Bible as Literature in Schools

[Risottia]

And that's because of the Bible's CULTURAL relevance. Not because of its relevance as piece of literature.

No...the Bible's influence upon LITERATURE is, unsurprisingly, because if its LITERARY RELEVANCE. This is tied in with the cultural relevance, but is not the same.

Literary relevance would be about a stunning and innovative use of the language (rhetorical forms, structure of narration etc). I see nothing thereof in the Bible.
Of course, culture (which includes religion) has an influence on literature. That's why the Bible has had influence on the Western literature.

[Lauchlin]

No...the Bible's influence upon LITERATURE is, unsurprisingly, because if its LITERARY RELEVANCE. This is tied in with the cultural relevance, but is not the same.

Literary relevance would be about a stunning and innovative use of the language (rhetorical forms, structure of narration etc). I see nothing thereof in the Bible.

You are very confused about what constitutes literary relevance.

[Risottia]

Literary relevance would be about a stunning and innovative use of the language (rhetorical forms, structure of narration etc). I see nothing thereof in the Bible.

You are very confused about what constitutes literary relevance.

Explain your idea, then. What is literarily relevant according to YOU? And beware, no cultural factors - it has to be exclusively about literature.

[Unhealthy2]

Tell you what, I'll give you a second chance to actually answer my points (edited to avoid your ostensible side issues):

1. We understand that you wish the world, universe, existence lived up to your expectations of neat little check-boxes of true and false, but -- as someone who is familiar with subjects including the philosophy of science -- you know that isn't true of even "hard science." Why expect us all to pretend as if it were true of everything we experience?

2. Again, you have admitted in past discussions that, although we may theoretically in the future be able to understand human thoughts, emotions, and behaviors at the levels of chemical interactions or electrical connections or even the interaction of atomic or sub-atomic particles, we are far, far, far, far, far from that ability today. So, yes, for now, much of what it means to be human isn't objectively quantified and dissected. The human experience is not just a series of scientifically defined "truths."

3. I fully understand your argument, but I think you are being deliberately obtuse. Are you denying the existence of pathos (or emotional appeal in general) as a means of communication? Are you truly saying you have never read, watch, heard something that communicated a feeling perhaps more effectively than a technical description of what that feeling should be like?

1) How was this response a dodge? You were trying to say that there are no real right and wrong answers to things, and you invoke quantum mechanics (wrongly) to support your point. I demonstrated that quantum mechanics does not support the idea that nothing fits into true/false descriptions. How is attacking your evidence a dodge, at all?

2) The human experience IS just a series of objectively definable truths. The fact that we don't know these truths does not change this. Don't confuse epistemological and metaphysical questions. In addition, how does the fact that we still have work to do in scientifically explaining human nature mean that literature does a better job? How does the fact that science cannot yet answer a question in any way imply that literature has the answer, or anything even remotely related to the answer in any accurate sense?

3) Emotional appeal exists, so what? Like I said before, but you somehow called this a dodge, does not the subjectivity of emotion mean that I can never understand what your feelings are like? If a technical description of what yellow looks like to you can't allow me to really "know" how you experience yellow, then why is literature going to make this communication any clearer? In fact, I would thing the very nature of literature, in that it is always open to multiple interpretations, makes this communication even more muddled.

You seem to be implying that if science can't do it, art can. I don't see how this follows.

[Unhealthy2]

I am correct in understanding that you are whining about having had to take a class in English Composition, which involved reading and analyzing literature (as opposed to a pure literature class)?

I'm not whining that I had to take it. He suggested that I'm bitter because I did poorly in English. I simply refuted his assertion by counter-example. Is this a problem?

First, as already mentioned, you presumably chose to go to a liberal arts college or university with these requirements, so it seems a bit petty to whine about them.

I'm not really whining. I managed to get out of any real lit classes by taken one semester of English grammar, and two semesters of German. I'm just saying that lit shouldn't be required.

Second, it isn't like the English Department forces the Science Departments to enroll their students in these classes against the better judgment of their faculty. My educated guess is that the majority of professors in your science departments agree with the idea that you should take courses in other disciplines, like english/literature. Perhaps those learned in your desired vocation know something you don't.

Most of my physics and mathematics profs either don't care about literature, or they make fun of the literary department. My one physics professor will often say "Well, that answer's good enough for [inserts name of English building], but here in [inserts science building], we require more precise answers than that." The faculty has very little say on the gen ed requirements outside of the ones that count as gen ed in their major. A mathematics prof of mine has said that literature is odd in that it's easier to get a PhD without knowing a thing. He said that, while people with PhD's in literature can be quite knowledgeable, it's also quite possible to get a PhD without really knowing things in a way that you can't get away with in mathematics.

Third, being able to communicate your ideas -- particularly in writing--is useful (if not essential) to a modern scientist. Thus, taking at least some classes relevant to that ability is directly relevant to your desired vocation.

I learned nothing in that class though. Nonetheless, I got a near perfect score on the writing section of the SAT's and the analytic writing essays on the GRE's, so I think my writing is good enough.

BTW, as someone who obtained a liberal arts education, I was forced to study physics, chemistry, and biology -- even though I could well argue they were pretty fucking irrelevant to political science (my major) with an emphasis on political philosophy and my eventual juris doctorate. Although there is much about those classes I did not enjoy, I would did not then and would not know argue that I should have had to take them.

And I've spent almost as much time in classes having nothing to do with my majors than in classes relevant to my majors. This is a bit of a problem, seeing as how the university fails to cover everything that forms a good grounding for graduate level physics. I've had to fill in the blanks with my own independent studying, and it's not like the gen ed courses were that helpful. Most of the gen ed classes are extremely broad, and specifically designed by the university to be easy A worthless courses that you can get out of the way (at least that's what ours seems to do). Besides, you tell me where exactly you can get a physics degree without a liberal arts education.

[Crumplarstan]

Everyone references the Bible, so knowledge of the Bible is necessary. Fin.

[Wewtlandem]

If we teach the Bible, then we must give a stand point on all religious texts, so we do not show bias towards one religion to our children, as that would not only violate some peoples religious beliefs, it would also violate religious freedoms to some extent. So, if we teach the Bible, then we also give a view on the Torah, Q'uaran, and other religious texts.

[Unhealthy2]

If we teach the Bible, then we must give a stand point on all religious texts, so we do not show bias towards one religion to our children, as that would not only violate some peoples religious beliefs, it would also violate religious freedoms to some extent. So, if we teach the Bible, then we also give a view on the Torah, Q'uaran, and other religious texts.

[nitpick]A bible class is automatically a Torah class, too.[/nitpick]

[The Alma Mater]

If we teach the Bible, then we must give a stand point on all religious texts, so we do not show bias towards one religion to our children, as that would not only violate some peoples religious beliefs, it would also violate religious freedoms to some extent. So, if we teach the Bible, then we also give a view on the Torah, Q'uaran, and other religious texts.

The question asked is if the Bible should be taught in a class on English literature - which after all was heavily influenced by it.
I daresay that the influence of other holy books on English literature is considerably smaller.

Btw - the Torah is part of the Bible.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Tell you what, I'll give you a second chance to actually answer my points (edited to avoid your ostensible side issues):

1. We understand that you wish the world, universe, existence lived up to your expectations of neat little check-boxes of true and false, but -- as someone who is familiar with subjects including the philosophy of science -- you know that isn't true of even "hard science." Why expect us all to pretend as if it were true of everything we experience?

2. Again, you have admitted in past discussions that, although we may theoretically in the future be able to understand human thoughts, emotions, and behaviors at the levels of chemical interactions or electrical connections or even the interaction of atomic or sub-atomic particles, we are far, far, far, far, far from that ability today. So, yes, for now, much of what it means to be human isn't objectively quantified and dissected. The human experience is not just a series of scientifically defined "truths."

3. I fully understand your argument, but I think you are being deliberately obtuse. Are you denying the existence of pathos (or emotional appeal in general) as a means of communication? Are you truly saying you have never read, watch, heard something that communicated a feeling perhaps more effectively than a technical description of what that feeling should be like?

1) How was this response a dodge? You were trying to say that there are no real right and wrong answers to things, and you invoke quantum mechanics (wrongly) to support your point. I demonstrated that quantum mechanics does not support the idea that nothing fits into true/false descriptions. How is attacking your evidence a dodge, at all?

2) The human experience IS just a series of objectively definable truths. The fact that we don't know these truths does not change this. Don't confuse epistemological and metaphysical questions. In addition, how does the fact that we still have work to do in scientifically explaining human nature mean that literature does a better job? How does the fact that science cannot yet answer a question in any way imply that literature has the answer, or anything even remotely related to the answer in any accurate sense?

3) Emotional appeal exists, so what? Like I said before, but you somehow called this a dodge, does not the subjectivity of emotion mean that I can never understand what your feelings are like? If a technical description of what yellow looks like to you can't allow me to really "know" how you experience yellow, then why is literature going to make this communication any clearer? In fact, I would thing the very nature of literature, in that it is always open to multiple interpretations, makes this communication even more muddled.

You seem to be implying that if science can't do it, art can. I don't see how this follows.

1. I am saying there are not always true/false or right/wrong answers to all questions -- which is true (and you haven't really denied and if you do deny it that is a mere hope/belief on your part). I was illustrating that this "checkbox" approach to reality was chimerical even as to questions of science by reference to quantum mechanics and philosophy of science. I never said that nothing is true or false -- that is a deliberate distortion on your part. Further, rather than debate you about quantum mechanics and its implications, I deleted that part of my point -- yet you still go on about quantum mechanics and don't answer the question! This is dodging the question at multiple levels.

2. It may be we ultimately learn to quantify and define human experience into objectively definable truths. It may be impossible. We don't know. Yours is a statement of faith, not fact or science.

I am not confusing epistomology and metaphysics, thank you. I know the difference. Throwing such terms around doesn't help you. In fact, that the questions of what is knowledge (etc) is itself an open question as well as metaphysics further demostrates the ridiculousness of your insistence that all can be known through a microscope.

I am not saying that literature necessarily is "better" than science. You are the one making allegedly "objective" judgments that one has no value beyond entertainment and one has the answer to all questions. So long as science cannot explain much of what we experience, how can you categorically deny that literature might aid in human understanding? Even if science could explain everything, couldn't literature me a method of communicating "truth"?

3. The relative subjectivity of emotions means that you sometimes may not understand my feelings or the feelings being communicated by an author. It doesn't make it impossible.

Next thing you'll be claiming art is also useless, because a painting can't communicate "yellow" better than a "technical description." All things are too some degree filtered through our subjective senses, including technical descriptions. Does this make all communication impossible?

You seem to be under the assumption that empirical "evidence" can never be subject to more than one interpretation (unlike literature). Doesn't the very history of scientific progress prove that wrong?

Again: are you truly saying you have never read, watch, heard something that communicated a feeling perhaps more effectively than a technical description of what that feeling should be like?

4. As I said above, I am not saying art can necessarily do what science cannot or that literature is better than science. I am merely defending the possibility that things that are not science can have value. Not just as amusements, but as tools to understanding ourselves and our experiences. It is you that is saying this is categorically impossible -- without a shred of evidence (or even serious justification).

[Muravyets]

If we teach the Bible, then we must give a stand point on all religious texts, so we do not show bias towards one religion to our children, as that would not only violate some peoples religious beliefs, it would also violate religious freedoms to some extent. So, if we teach the Bible, then we also give a view on the Torah, Q'uaran, and other religious texts.

The thread is about teaching English literature, not religion. The Bible is a major influence on English Lit., even to non-religious (even anti-religious) writers. Has nothing to do with the practice or teaching of religion. It's about knowing what Herman Melville or Ernest Hemingway or William Faulkner, etc., were talking about.

[Supreme Marshal Petan]

The Bible, discarding religious beliefs, is like any other piece of literature. And like Greek mythology it should be noted and respected, not necessarily adopted as fact.

[Wewtlandem]

If we teach the Bible, then we must give a stand point on all religious texts, so we do not show bias towards one religion to our children, as that would not only violate some peoples religious beliefs, it would also violate religious freedoms to some extent. So, if we teach the Bible, then we also give a view on the Torah, Q'uaran, and other religious texts.

The thread is about teaching English literature, not religion. The Bible is a major influence on English Lit., even to non-religious (even anti-religious) writers. Has nothing to do with the practice or teaching of religion. It's about knowing what Herman Melville or Ernest Hemingway or William Faulkner, etc., were talking about.

Well then we can look to other texts of a religious nature that had an influence on English literature. I believe that many of the enlightenment writings from places such as India had a huge effect on English literature.

[The Cat-Tribe]

I am correct in understanding that you are whining about having had to take a class in English Composition, which involved reading and analyzing literature (as opposed to a pure literature class)?

I'm not whining that I had to take it. He suggested that I'm bitter because I did poorly in English. I simply refuted his assertion by counter-example. Is this a problem?

First, as already mentioned, you presumably chose to go to a liberal arts college or university with these requirements, so it seems a bit petty to whine about them.

I'm not really whining. I managed to get out of any real lit classes by taken one semester of English grammar, and two semesters of German. I'm just saying that lit shouldn't be required.

Second, it isn't like the English Department forces the Science Departments to enroll their students in these classes against the better judgment of their faculty. My educated guess is that the majority of professors in your science departments agree with the idea that you should take courses in other disciplines, like english/literature. Perhaps those learned in your desired vocation know something you don't.

Most of my physics and mathematics profs either don't care about literature, or they make fun of the literary department. My one physics professor will often say "Well, that answer's good enough for [inserts name of English building], but here in [inserts science building], we require more precise answers than that." The faculty has very little say on the gen ed requirements outside of the ones that count as gen ed in their major. A mathematics prof of mine has said that literature is odd in that it's easier to get a PhD without knowing a thing. He said that, while people with PhD's in literature can be quite knowledgeable, it's also quite possible to get a PhD without really knowing things in a way that you can't get away with in mathematics.

Third, being able to communicate your ideas -- particularly in writing--is useful (if not essential) to a modern scientist. Thus, taking at least some classes relevant to that ability is directly relevant to your desired vocation.

I learned nothing in that class though. Nonetheless, I got a near perfect score on the writing section of the SAT's and the analytic writing essays on the GRE's, so I think my writing is good enough.

BTW, as someone who obtained a liberal arts education, I was forced to study physics, chemistry, and biology -- even though I could well argue they were pretty fucking irrelevant to political science (my major) with an emphasis on political philosophy and my eventual juris doctorate. Although there is much about those classes I did not enjoy, I would did not then and would not know argue that I should have had to take them.

And I've spent almost as much time in classes having nothing to do with my majors than in classes relevant to my majors. This is a bit of a problem, seeing as how the university fails to cover everything that forms a good grounding for graduate level physics. I've had to fill in the blanks with my own independent studying, and it's not like the gen ed courses were that helpful. Most of the gen ed classes are extremely broad, and specifically designed by the university to be easy A worthless courses that you can get out of the way (at least that's what ours seems to do). Besides, you tell me where exactly you can get a physics degree without a liberal arts education.

1. I could have sworn you have in this thread and even in the post above repeatedly complained about "'required' courses [like literature or English] that the university can use to take time away from me actually working on math and physics."

2. Obviously, if you did well on the SAT and GRE's, you never have anything more to learn about communication or writing. Ever. You have completely mastered the skill to perfection. Your Nobel Prize is in the mail.

3. Clearly you failed to see the forest for the trees. Why do think you cannot get a physics degree without a liberal arts education? Is it a conspiracy against science by the rest of us? It is common for experts in one field to make fun of experts in another field. This does not provide evidence that the majority of your science professors would abolish general education requirements.

4. Poor you. Clearly, physics, chemistry, biology and the vast majority of classes I took as an undergraduate were directly connected to the study of law. It is just science majors that are "unfairly" "forced" to obtain well-rounded liberal arts degrees before specializing into a specific field.

[Unhealthy2]

1. I am saying there are not always true/false or right/wrong answers to all questions -- which is true (and you haven't really denied and if you do deny it that is a mere hope/belief on your part). I was illustrating that this "checkbox" approach to reality was chimerical even as to questions of science by reference to quantum mechanics and philosophy of science. I never said that nothing is true or false -- that is a deliberate distortion on your part. Further, rather than debate you about quantum mechanics and its implications, I deleted that part of my point -- yet you still go on about quantum mechanics and don't answer the question! This is dodging the question at multiple levels.

2. It may be we ultimately learn to quantify and define human experience into objectively definable truths. It may be impossible. We don't know. Yours is a statement of faith, not fact or science.

I am not confusing epistomology and metaphysics, thank you. I know the difference. Throwing such terms around doesn't help you. In fact, that the questions of what is knowledge (etc) is itself an open question as well as metaphysics further demostrates the ridiculousness of your insistence that all can be known through a microscope.

I am not saying that literature necessarily is "better" than science. You are the one making allegedly "objective" judgments that one has no value beyond entertainment and one has the answer to all questions. So long as science cannot explain much of what we experience, how can you categorically deny that literature might aid in human understanding? Even if science could explain everything, couldn't literature me a method of communicating "truth"?

3. The relative subjectivity of emotions means that you sometimes may not understand my feelings or the feelings being communicated by an author. It doesn't make it impossible.

Next thing you'll be claiming art is also useless, because a painting can't communicate "yellow" better than a "technical description." All things are too some degree filtered through our subjective senses, including technical descriptions. Does this make all communication impossible?

You seem to be under the assumption that empirical "evidence" can never be subject to more than one interpretation (unlike literature). Doesn't the very history of scientific progress prove that wrong?

Again: are you truly saying you have never read, watch, heard something that communicated a feeling perhaps more effectively than a technical description of what that feeling should be like?

4. As I said above, I am not saying art can necessarily do what science cannot or that literature is better than science. I am merely defending the possibility that things that are not science can have value. Not just as amusements, but as tools to understanding ourselves and our experiences. It is you that is saying this is categorically impossible -- without a shred of evidence (or even serious justification).

1) Something which is neither true nor false is non-cognitivist, meaning that it's not even a proposition to begin with. When it comes to matters of fact, everything must be either true or false. Basic logic dictates that this must be the case. Allowing contradictions is not possible unless we first choose to not allow them. The only other possibility is to make a broader logic allotting for more values between true and false, aka, denying bivalence. However, all statements made in non-bivalent logic are always translatable to statements in bivalent logic, so the difference is merely one of phraseology and not one of actual meaning. Hence, everything that is a matter of fact (a proposition) must be either true or false.

2) Again, I'm not saying that it is definitely possible for us to eventually quantify (in the sense of assigning some mathematical structure to) all of human experience in practice. I'm saying that, in principle, logic dictates that it must be so. Our experiences must obey a set of rules. These rules may be too complex for us to work out, or to obscure for us to tease out through experiment, but consistency requires that there be some set of laws that they obey. In addition, it's not really a statement of faith for me to suspect that we probably will eventually figure it out, as I have evidence of our past successes in explaining other parts of nature. What makes humans so special that they would be the one thing that can't be explained?

3) Okay, it's not impossible, but it's not necessarily the case that it's more reliable to use art than technical descriptions. Also, calling literature pointless is not really an insult. I also find video games pointless, yet I still play them. I just see literature as entertainment. Thus, I guess it's not really pointless per se, more that it's pointless unless you enjoy it. If you don't like video games, it's pointless for you to play them.

4) I'm not saying it's categorically impossible, I'm saying that I need to see some substance. Give me something showing what exactly literature can give us that constitutes information. In addition, don't say that I only rely on science. That's a self-refuting position, as science rests on deeper metaphysical grounds. Thus, I also rely on mathematics and philosophy. Don't strawman me.

[Unhealthy2]

1. I could have sworn you have in this thread and even in the post above repeatedly complained about "'required' courses [like literature or English] that the university can use to take time away from me actually working on math and physics."

2. Obviously, if you did well on the SAT and GRE's, you never have anything more to learn about communication or writing. Ever. You have completely mastered the skill to perfection. Your Nobel Prize is in the mail.

3. Clearly you failed to see the forest for the trees. Why do think you cannot get a physics degree without a liberal arts education? Is it a conspiracy against science by the rest of us? It is common for experts in one field to make fun of experts in another field. This does not provide evidence that the majority of your science professors would abolish general education requirements.

4. Poor you. Clearly, physics, chemistry, biology and the vast majority of classes I took as an undergraduate were directly connected to the study of law. It is just science majors that are "unfairly" "forced" to obtain well-rounded liberal arts degrees before specializing into a specific field.

1. Yes, that was in the context of a misreading of the OP wherein I thought he was talking about making bible as literature a required collegiate course. It was a mistake. You're a lawyer. Sue me.

2. No, I'm not a master in communication, but my communication skills are adequate for my field. I'm not writing novels, and I can write hell of a lot better that a lot of the indecipherable garbage that gets published in a lot of major physics journals and textbooks.

3. Why do I think that you can't get a physics degree without a liberal arts education? Well, the official answer is so that I'm well-rounded, but my real suspicion is so that the university can extract larger sums of money from it's students, but that's just the cynic in me. I don't think it's a conspiracy against science students in particular, as all majors have to do the gen ed thing.

Also, it does provide evidence that they would abolish it, just not conclusive evidence. Another bit of evidence is that all my academic advising has been geared toward getting general education "over with" or "out of the way," so that I can focus on "more important stuff," as my adviser tends to put it.

4. When did I say it was just the science majors?