Homo Consumericus

The nature and nurture of consumption.

by Gad Saad, Ph.D.

Which Religious Edicts Are To Be Taken Literally Versus Figuratively?

Navigating the literal/figurative divide in Holy books.

Published on October 9, 2011 by Gad Saad, Ph.D. in Homo Consumericus

Whenever religious folks are asked how they know which parts of their holy books are to be taken literally versus those that are to be interpreted figuratively, there is never a clear and unequivocal consensus. Rather, it seems that each individual has his/her own unique (and apparently veridical) insights into the mind of their chosen God. Take for example the death penalty. The number of crimes punishable by death within the Abrahamic religions is an impressive one. It includes ones that we might expect to garner such a punishment (e.g., murder and rape). However, the list also contains the following "criminals" worthy of being put to death: your insolent children (!!!); a woman who is being raped and does not cry out for help; adulterers; apostates; transgressors of the Sabbath; a woman who turns out to not be a virgin on her wedding night (and pretended otherwise); "false" prophets; homosexuals; blasphemers; and proselytizers. To those of you who thought that a disrespectful child should be placed in "time out," you are wrong. Rebellious children should apparently be killed. That will teach your child to talk back to you. God help your son if he happens to be both rebellious and gay.

Find a Therapist

Search for a mental health professional near you.

Find Local:

The convoluted logic that religious folks offer to explain away the hallucinatory harshness of these "crimes" is at best logically inconsistent and at worst deeply intellectually dishonest. Some of the arguments include: "The quote is taken out of context." Of course, they never provide an explanation of how the quote is actually taken out of context. The prescription to take your rebellious son to the gates of the city and have him stoned to death is difficult to take out of context. It is also difficult to see how it might be "wrongly interpreted." Who knew that stoning to death is a metaphor for a light spank followed by gentle cuddling? Other arguments include that these punishments were appropriate for another time and place but no longer hold true in today's world. So there was a context wherein the moral compass would permit the killing of your own children for being disobedient but this no longer holds true today? What about the prevalence of contemporary honor killings justified on the basis of religious scriptures? What about those who suggest that a given holy book contains the inerrant and literal words of God and hence is not bound to a particular time or place?

The reality is that anyone who portends that they possess the prescription for which religious edicts are to be taken literally versus figuratively is simply lying (or more charitably, deeply misguided). No such prescription exists. Every religious individual cherry picks passages in ways that are consistent with his/her moral compass. If you are against the death penalty, you'll quote "Thou Shall Not Kill" in support of your position. If you are in favor of the death penalty, there is no shortage of passages in various holy books to which you could turn in support of your position.

Our morality is not derived from religious scriptures. Our moral compass is a complex evolutionary adaptation to the challenges posed by human sociality.

One final point: One often hears religious folks argue that religions need to be respected, one manifestation of which is that they should not be criticized (a form of blasphemy). For example, the recent global conference on religion held in Montreal on September 7, 2011 had the following article (see items 4 and 5) endorsed as a viable principle (originally posted on its website):

ARTICLE 12
(1) Everyone has the right to privacy. This right includes the right not to be subjected to arbitrary interference with one's privacy; of one's own, or of one's family, home or correspondence.
(2) Everyone has the right to one's good name.
(3) It is the duty of everyone to protect the privacy and reputation of everyone else.
(4) Everyone has the right not to have one's religion denigrated in the media or the academia.
(5) It is the duty of the follower of every religion to ensure that no religion is denigrated in the media or the academia.

Items four and five have since been removed from the website (see here). Undoubtedly, this was in large part due to the fact that several news organizations covered the extraordinary nefarious implications to free speech implied by such measures. I am sure that it would not be too difficult to obtain a screen shot of Article 12 as it originally appeared on the site. Addendum: The original Article 12 can be accessed here (I've also saved a copy of the screen shots as a pdf file). I thank the reader who brought this link to my attention.

The Renaissance period and the Age of Enlightenment freed humanity from the shackles of blasphemy. We have the right to criticize, question, and debate religious beliefs. Hence, it is never gauche to criticize any belief. The age of reason, the scientific method, and liberal democracies have granted us this inalienable right. Freedom of speech (and associated criticisms of any belief system) is the foundational bedrock of all of our freedoms. Accordingly, our right to criticize religion should never be compromised in any way. People have the right to hold to their religious beliefs (as long as these do not infringe on the rights of others), and free people have every right to criticize, question, mock, and debate these.

For some of my other religion-related posts, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here, as well as chapter 8 of my recently released trade book The Consuming Instinct: What Juicy Burgers, Ferraris, Pornography, and Gift Giving Reveal About Human Nature.