= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
g_pepper comments on A Parable On Obsolete Ideologies - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (272)
When a metaphor uses words describing situation A in order to make a comparison to situation B, that still requires belief in A. If the Bible said "following God is like eating ice cream", that's a statement about following God being good, but it also carries the assumption that eating ice cream is good--if you don't think eating ice cream is good, using it as a metaphor for something else being good would fail.
In order to use "Jesus zaps a tree" as a metaphor for "Jesus hates putting on appearances", you still need to believe that it's okay to zap a tree. If zapping a tree is not okay, then the metaphor makes no sense. So it is, in fact, legitimate to criticize this on the basis that zapping a tree is a temper tantrum.
Furthermore, part of atheists' objection is to the story's metaphorical meaning. The full story is that Jesus zapped a tree for not providing figs even though it was not the season for figs. The metaphor, then, becomes "Jesus hates it when people aren't really moral even when it's impossible for them to follow Jesus' standards of morality". And a lot of people have good reason to object to that.
People frequently use phrases describing morally objectionable actions as metaphors for morally acceptable (and prudential) actions. For example, "eviscerate" is sometimes used as a metaphor for achieving a decisive victory in a debate or a sporting event. While actually eviscerating one's debate opponent would be morally objectionable, winning a debate is not morally objectionable. There are many other examples of this sort of thing, particularly in sports journalism.
We generally do that when there is an unobjectionable version of the action and it can be exaggerated into the objectionable one. It would be wrong to eviscerate an opponent in an actual violent fight, but it would be okay to hurt an opponent in one.
Jesus zapping the tree is not just objectionable because it is too extreme; Jesus shouting at the tree or even politely condemning it wouldn't be acceptable.
Politely condemning a tree is not acceptable? You have a pretty strict ethic! :)
It's unacceptable in the sense that he has no reason to condemn it and that doing so with serious intent is a sign of a personality flaw, even if such behavior wouldn't be enough to get him thrown out of a restaurant.