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