[net.religion.jewish] Premises,Premises,Premises,...

samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) (06/04/85)

The comments below are taken from a single article in which R. Rosen was
responding to an article of mine.

> This argument assumes the existence of an endower, which is an
> unproven (and a wishful thinking) assumption...
>
> If you choose to take the same assumptions that Mr. Samet does as your axioms...
>
> But why take the presumptive third view, with its wishful thinking presumptions
> behind it, when you have the first view which has its roots in a clear
> rational basis?  The second and third views only work as justifications if
> your accept the premises about "endowers"...
>
> See above.  Mr. Samet's views would require that you make his types of
> presumptions about the existence of god and, moreover, that your assumptions
> be exactly the same as his...
>
>
> What about the rights of those who don't hold your presumptions about god?...
>
> If and only if you could prove your presumptions about the nature of the law...
>
> It's dogmatic and arbitrary in that your basis for accepting it as fact is
> no sounding than that of any other religious believer...

These comments, and numerous others in previous debates, express (obsessively)
two points:

1) My views entail certain assumptions/premises.

2) My assumptions are claimed to arbitrary ( = unproven,  undemonstrable,
wishful etc.)

If I denied that my opinions are from a  Torah  viewpoint,  these
repeated  comments might be understandable. However, the point of
my article was to  show  that  a  viewpoint  based  on  religious
premises leads  to different conclusions concerning rights, and I
did so by distinguishing between and contrasting  religious based
arguments  and  non religious-based arguments. Since one position
was openly represented as religious-based, it is inappropriate to
object that it is religious-based. That is the very subject.

In general, to ask why I believe that the Torah is G*d given  and
true  is an important and legitimate question.  I and others have
discussed this on the net as a standalone topic.  It  is  a  long
complex  subject.  It is worthwhile to explore it with anyone who
is sincerely interested. It is a waste of time to discuss it with
someone whose seeks antagonism rather than discourse.

However, to raise this issue as  a  heckling/taunting  tactic  in
order to stifle any expression of religious-based views is wrong.
I cannot be expected to apologize for holding  religious views by
justifying  the  Torah's foundation every time I want to say "the
Torah says such and such".  First of all, I clearly indicate when
my  opinions  are based on religious premises.  Secondly, this is
net.religion.jewish,  and  it  is  a  place  to  express   Jewish
religious  views,  even  Torah  ones!  If  someone wishes to rant
incessantly  against  every  opinion  which   entails   religious
assumptions, net.flame or net.atheism might be a better place.

I am ready and willing to discuss why  the  Torah  is  internally
self-consistent on any issue or why I think a non-Torah viewpoint
is internally inconsistent.  I would like very much  to  continue
to  address  the issue of foundations, but frankly, it would take
pages and pages of discussion. For this reason, I try to touch on
points piecemeal, when questions or issues are raised.

If, unlike the  religiously  atheistic,  you  can  entertain  the
possiblility  that  legitimate logical basis exists for believing
in the Torah, I can suggest some books on  the subject  of  Torah
foundations.

                                Yitzchok Samet

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/06/85)

> The comments below are taken from a single article in which R. Rosen was
> responding to an article of mine. [SAMET]

>>This argument assumes the existence of an endower, which is an
>>unproven (and a wishful thinking) assumption...
>
>>If you choose to take the same assumptions that Mr. Samet does as your axioms.
>
>>But why take the presumptive third view, with its wishful thinking presumptions
>>behind it, when you have the first view which has its roots in a clear
>>rational basis?  The second and third views only work as justifications if
>>your accept the premises about "endowers"...
>
>>See above.  Mr. Samet's views would require that you make his types of
>>presumptions about the existence of god and, moreover, that your assumptions
>>be exactly the same as his...
>
>>What about the rights of those who don't hold your presumptions about god?...
>
>>If and only if you could prove your presumptions about the nature of the law.
>
>>It's dogmatic and arbitrary in that your basis for accepting it as fact is
>>no sounding than that of any other religious believer...

> These comments, and numerous others in previous debates, express (obsessively)
> two points:
> 1) My views entail certain assumptions/premises.
> 2) My assumptions are claimed to arbitrary ( = unproven,  undemonstrable,
> wishful etc.)

Is this not true?  Or do you have the final proof of the existence of god
and of the holiness of the Bible that has eluded serious investigators for
centuries?

> If I denied that my opinions are from a  Torah  viewpoint,  these
> repeated  comments might be understandable. However, the point of
> my article was to  show  that  a  viewpoint  based  on  religious
> premises leads  to different conclusions concerning rights, and I
> did so by distinguishing between and contrasting  religious based
> arguments  and  non religious-based arguments. Since one position
> was openly represented as religious-based, it is inappropriate to
> object that it is religious-based. That is the very subject.

Not so.  The point is that such a basis for the determining rights,
since they lead to direct conflicts AND since the basis is presumptuous
and unprovable, that sort of basis has no place in determining the rights
of human beings, especially not your "right" to interfere in their lives.

> In general, to ask why I believe that the Torah is G*d given  and
> true  is an important and legitimate question.  I and others have
> discussed this on the net as a standalone topic.  It  is  a  long
> complex  subject.  It is worthwhile to explore it with anyone who
> is sincerely interested. It is a waste of time to discuss it with
> someone whose seeks antagonism rather than discourse.

But the bottom line of ALL that discussion is always (for ALL religions)
that the basis for believing is a personal one that stems from one's
own unverifiable personal subjective experience interpreted by YOU
(based on your own mindset) as "God", plus one's acceptance a priori
of certain things as true (some combination thereof).

> However, to raise this issue as  a  heckling/taunting  tactic  in
> order to stifle any expression of religious-based views is wrong.
> I cannot be expected to apologize for holding  religious views by
> justifying  the  Torah's foundation every time I want to say "the
> Torah says such and such".  First of all, I clearly indicate when
> my  opinions  are based on religious premises.  Secondly, this is
> net.religion.jewish,  and  it  is  a  place  to  express   Jewish
> religious  views,  even  Torah  ones!  If  someone wishes to rant
> incessantly  against  every  opinion  which   entails   religious
> assumptions, net.flame or net.atheism might be a better place.

You CAN be expected to apologize and to be accountable when you advocate
punishment for people you simply cannot tolerate because it says so in
a book, just as YOU would expect others to apologize or be accountable
when they advocate "punishment" for you for your beliefs and actions.
And don't claim some exemption as a religion by saying things like Nazism
don't constitute religions.  Political philosophies, especially those
like Nazism and other movements rooted in violence and hate, are indeed
nothing but "religions" to their followers.

> I am ready and willing to discuss why  the  Torah  is  internally
> self-consistent on any issue or why I think a non-Torah viewpoint
> is internally inconsistent.

"Internal self-consistency" is always the best a religion can hope to
achieve in attempting to prove itself.  The working's of a madman's mind
are also internally self-consistent.  It proves nothing.

> If, unlike the  religiously  atheistic,  you  can  entertain  the
> possiblility  that  legitimate logical basis exists for believing
> in the Torah, I can suggest some books on  the subject  of  Torah
> foundations.

Such literature, like the "evidence" of Dan Boskovich, provides proof only
if you accept the conclusion a priori.
-- 
"Now, go away or I shall taunt you a second time!"
				Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr

cher@ihlpm.UUCP (cherepov) (06/06/85)

While agreeing with Rich Rosen on value of Mosaic laws I do not
see any merit in his philosophical premises:
He is forcing on Samet comparison of Biblical intolerance
of homosexuals and Nazi intolerance of Jews.

I see critical distinctions - Nazi view of Jews was based on 
theory of superiority. If theory is invalid Nazism would have to 
come up with different reason for anti-semitism.
My point is that refuting Aryan superiority is very easy compared
to refuting Torah.
In fact Jewish inferiority is falsifiable within the framework of
Nazism.
Homosexuality is definitely a sin within framework of Judaism.

From Rich:
> "Internal self-consistency" is always the best a religion can hope to
> achieve in attempting to prove itself.  

I'd say it's the best any morality system can hope to do.
I do not see any other yardstick.

Although stuff like "your right stops where mine starts, everybody's
equal,..." appeals to me, it would only be one person's view.
Unless you want to vote on it...
Or to quote Woody Allen 
- Morals are subjective.
- Subjectivity is objective...
			Mike Cherepov

cher@ihlpm.UUCP (cherepov) (06/08/85)

> Until you or I can find a distinct difference between the two, we should
> continue to do so.    (of Samet's and Nazis' intolerance)

Sure, but I thought I found it (see below). You disagree with 
self-consistency test as the only way one can judge some morality system 
without using one's own morality to do it. All further disagreement stems 
from that.
And you show us your way (see below). I can not accept it and will tell why.

> > I do not see any other yardstick.   (me on self-consistency)
>
> How about how successfully the morality provides for the needs of all the
> people within the society?

I like it. I do. I really do. Do I like it! What else can I say to
justify acceptance of this dogma?

> It would be the view of every person if they thought about their own
> rights and the rights of others and carried the thinking through to its
> logical consequences.

?????????
What if I like "the Strong rule" and live by it? What logic could make 
me admit that there are "rights of others"? Please show us this logic.

			Mike Cherepov
P.S.  This chat is not at all related to any group but net.philosophy,
	unless you were more interested in Y. Samet's justification
	of his belief in Torah - a different issue entirely. Let's move.

rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (06/11/85)

>> Until you or I can find a distinct difference between the two, we should
>> continue to do so.    (of Samet's and Nazis' intolerance)
> 
> Sure, but I thought I found it (see below). You disagree with 
> self-consistency test as the only way one can judge some morality system 
> without using one's own morality to do it. All further disagreement stems 
> from that.
> And you show us your way (see below). I can not accept it and will tell why.
> 
>>> > I do not see any other yardstick.   (me on self-consistency)
>>
>> How about how successfully the morality provides for the needs of all the
>> people within the society?
> 
> I like it. I do. I really do. Do I like it! What else can I say to
> justify acceptance of this dogma?

I'm not sure.  What is it you're looking for?

>> It would be the view of every person if they thought about their own
>> rights and the rights of others and carried the thinking through to its
>> logical consequences.
> 
> ?????????
> What if I like "the Strong rule" and live by it? What logic could make 
> me admit that there are "rights of others"? Please show us this logic.

"The strong rule" is a fact of life no matter which morality you subscribe to.
A morality that serves the needs of all the people as much as possible will
gain the support of those people, and the support of the vast majority of
people should be enough deterrent to you if you choose to believe there are
no "rights of others".  And if it's not, the society should be strong enough
to put a stop to any interference you might decide to evince.
-- 
"Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end."
						Rich Rosen   pyuxd!rlr