(5-minute read)

Question: Does a Bible quote belong in a TEDx talk pitching a new technology?  

Answer: Read below how my opinion evolved from “no” to “yes” and then back to a final “no”, after being asked for advice from an upcoming TEDx speaker

My friend is crafting his speech for a TEDx lecture. His thing is advocating for dry public sanitation systems instead of customary water-based systems. Composting toilets (such as those familiar to backcountry enthusiasts in North America and Europe) could be deployed to economically-developing regions that currently lack public sanitation altogether, as well as replace the common style of portable toilet in developed regions. Suspending human poop in water is an unnecessarily costly and environmentally harmful practice borne merely out of taboo.

This friend contacted me for my opinion on his plan to cite a Hebrew Bible passage in his talk: “from dust, returning to dust” (which he knew from the passage in Genesis, and which I knew from its recapitulation in the Ecclesiastes).

I. Which passage?

For you are dust, and to dust you will return (Genesis 3:19)

All come from dust, and to dust all return (Ecclesiastes 3:20)

Both passages in their original language use the Hebrew word ‘afar (עָפַר). In the Greek Septuagint, this was rendered as either gēn (γῆν, “earth/ground”, in Genesis) or choun (χοῦν, “dust”, in Ecclesiastes). In English translations, “dust” has consistently been used in both passages. 

Genesis Chapter 3 recounts a creation myth from the 10^th-century BCE Yahwist, southern Judean tradition. It was likely written around the 8^th century BCE.  (In the Bible, this creation story occurs second in sequence after a first—Elohist—creation story, which borrows from the 18^th-century BCE Sumerian “Enuma Elish” epic. It was likely redacted in the 6^th century BCE.)  The Book of Ecclesiastes was composed anonymously in the 3^rd to 2^nd century BCE, under Hellenistic influence; and it is likely that its wording is an allusion to the then-familiar Genesis passage.

Both passages are philosophically cynical. Genesis 3 explains God’s postlapsarian punishment on humankind, including endless hard work and eventual death. Ecclesiastes describes the meaninglessness of life—in this verse specifically noting that humans and animals are alike in the fact of their inevitable death.

So, pick either one of the two verses for the quote.

II. Argument from emotion or from reason?

Bringing the Bible into an argument about technology and environment could impugn the credibility of the speaker. This is especially true in the technology community, which is certainly more post-theist/atheist than the general U.S. population. The kneejerk judgment among the ever-growing number of post-/non-religious Americans is that Bible-quoters lack critical thinking skills. (e.g., Does this dude on stage read sacred texts literally and out of context? Did he misread his audience/market here? Does he draw other conclusions about the world from scripture, in lieu of using science and reason?)

The TED organization does specify that all science and health info shared in TED/TEDx talks must be supported by peer-reviewed research. Obviously, a single Bible quote isn’t a big deal. Although, the guidance does exist that straying too far from secular methods of reason is not appropriate.

On the other hand, invoking the Bible—the foundational document of Western civilization—is a technique that could potentially augment a message’s gravity and heighten its persuasiveness. It’s an emotional hook. Emotional content is essential to making an audience remember content better, be more persuaded by an argument, and feel motivated to take action. Regardless of their current beliefs regarding the supernatural, people who grew up with the Bible are to some extent emotionally triggered by a Bible reference. Moreover, most people in the English-speaking world who have ever been to a funeral will likely have heard “ashes to ashes, dust to dust” (which, in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer, is a mashup allusion to both the Genesis and Ecclesiastes passages in question).  

Indeed, grasping the meaning of Biblical references is part of cultural literacy for people of all faiths in the West. For thousands of years, such allusions have added richness of layered meaning to art, literature, political speech, and popular culture.

The trick is to invoke the Bible purely to add pathos to the message, but not as a logical argument.  Appeal to emotion and appeal to authority are serious logical fallacies. (This is true of appeal to actual authority. Appealing to unrecognized authority (i.e., a religious text) is an even more egregious logical fallacy.)  Emotion or authority can never be the premise upon which valid logical conclusions are drawn.  Quoting the Bible can look like an appeal to Biblical authority: arguing that we should dispense with the poop taboo (which is what perpetuates dominance of water-borne sanitation systems) because putting our poop back into the earth is consistent with the human condition (i.e., being made of dust and returning to dust). His intended, implied logic goes something like this:

1. The Bible is authoritative.
2. The Bible says something about dust.
3. Therefore, my dry sanitation idea is good/natural/important.

Emotional content is indeed critical for effective persuasion. But the risk to my friend’s credibility may offset the potential gain here. A better way to wield emotion would be with vivid anecdotes, personal testimony, and more universal examples (to complement the central argument: an argument from reason that uses evidence and statistics). 

III. Who is the primary audience?

1. People in the lecture hall during the talk
2. Prospective investors in the speaker’s future company
3. Prospective customers of the speaker’s eventual product
4. Prospective end users of the product
5. Other people who view the recorded talk later (e.g., friends, family, associates)
6. Self (i.e., personal authenticity)

I think the speaker is best served by designing his message to persuade groups #2 and #3. The point of doing a TEDx talk about one’s startup idea is to establish a credible personal platform—which hopefully facilitates obtaining investor funding and acquiring initial partners/customers. The TEDx video of his talk will become a useful public relations tool to get traction. As a practical matter, #6 shouldn’t be the target audience. It’s better to save the self-actualization for some other venue.

Note also that the Hebrew Bible has no specific resonance for the two-thirds of humans not raised in the Judeo-Christian tradition. And those two-thirds of all humans are the people to whom the proposed technology will be primarily deployed! (i.e., audience groups #3 and #4)

Bible-quoting constitutes a bit of “Global North-splaining” to the Global South—an instance of Western cultural-religious hegemony rearing its supposedly-humbled head. Consider that, three decades ago, our American society awoke to the need to gut Western- and Anglo-centric “great books” courses. So, a pitch arguing for the universal import of a technology should not rely on sectarian/parochial references.

Now, it is true that the Bible may have resonance for some members of audience group #2: American private equity firms. Though a majority of such wealthy, educated Californians are post-theists/atheists who ascribe little import to the Bible, most are nominally/culturally Christian or Jewish and so may have an emotional response to an invocation of the Bible. (Although that emotional response could be a negative one!) Furthermore, the venture capital community notably includes a non-trivial number of Hindus.

IV. Conclusion

So, should he include the Bible quote in his TEDx speech?

• No. It may damage his credibility. But . . .
• Yes, it may have persuasive emotional resonance for some. But still . . .
• No. Because Western hegemony. (Plus, there are more effective sources of pathos.)

November 2016