Re: Hitchens on religion


"Micha Berger" <micha@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:f2g8v2$382$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Steve Goldfarb <slg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Indeed. But one doesn't posken halacha from the Talmud. So regardless of
whether one "questions the directives" or not, an O Jew obeys, correct?

If he chooses to be O. But that's just saying that someone who chooses
to be O acts O to the extent he toes that party line. Circular and
vacuus. The question was why people choose to be O, or C, or Renewal, or
Catholic, or Bolshevic, or any other stance on religious topics.

Nor does the behavior of religious people (such as Christian reliance
on "Faith", as they define the term) impugn the ability to have a
justified belief in one's religion.

You seem to be making two different points with this sentence, which has
consistently been causing me confusion. Are you asserting that Christians
cannot have a justified belief, or simply that they do not? ...

They they don't want one. They might have a belief they justified for
themselves, but most churches laud the leap of faith. Tertullian even
went as far as saying that the illogic of Christianity is /why/ he
believed it. "[P]rorsus credible est, quia ineptum est -- it is certain
because it is impossible."

Well in all fairness to Christians, it should be noted that they have
a wide variety of views on that subject. Aquinas after all spent
years trying to work out rational justifications for certain fundamental
Christian beliefs like belief in the existence of God and in the
immortality of the soul. BTW he seems to have drawn upon
the writings of the Rambam in that effort. The current Pope
in last year's controversial remarks concerning Islam, attempted
to draw a distinction between Christianity and Islam on the
basis of the idea that Christianity reveres reasons in a way
that Islam does not. On the other hand there have been
quite eminent Christian thinkers who have followed in
the footsteps of Tertullian. Pascal was one such
example as was Kierkegaard. (BTW wasn't
J.B. Soloveitchik a great admirer of Kierkegaard?)


have Faith because their beliefs are not justifiable, while you have a
"justified belief" which is different from Faith because your beliefs
(being correct) are justifiable? ...

Justification doesn't mean "proof". Proof of the sense you want doesn't
exist -- you can never be 100% certain of anything other than your own
existence (because if you're wrong, then you're not there to be wrong
anyway). Cogito ergo sum -- I think, therefore I am" - Descartes.

Well radical or absolute skepticism is out, not only because it
is unsustainable but also because it is incoherent. However,
what Hume called a "mitigated skepticism," in which we
concern ourselves with proportioning belief to evidence
seems quite defensible. Like Hume, I don't think that
conventional religious claims can stand up to an even
mitigated skepticism.


I am saying that the level of justification I have for my version of
Judaism is high enough that only the clinically insane would worry about
that gap. Much like wondering if this time around the rock won't fall
if I let go of it. Or like being so philosophically inclined they can't
tie their own shoes or otherwise deal with the real world.

Well would that level of justification be enought to persuade
say a Muslim or a Buddhist?


...
Earlier we discussed the idea of whether "good" is something different
from "doing what God commanded." I understand you believe they are
different. Am I correct, though, that many (most?) O Jews believe they
are
one and the same? I think that statement has been made here many times.

Yes there are.

But nevertheless, let's take your position -- God commanded us to be
"good," but "good" is something other than simply following the other
commandments. Right? So "good" is something that we humans determine
based
on our understandfng of our purpose, our senses, our emotions, etc...

No. We try to determine good using known reliable sources, gut instinct,
and other such things. What we try to determine is an objective standard
defined by G-d's purpose in creating us.

Why should God's purposes be regarded as morally binding upon us?
After all that would seem to presuppose that His purposes were
good or benevolent. But you already admitted that we cannot define goodness
as coformity to God's will. Therefore, the determination of what is
good or right must rest on a standard that is logically independent of
God's purposes.


To say it another way, I think we both agree that "good" is following
one's principles of morality and values (or something like that)...

By definition. It's content free -- being moral means following
morality.

difference seems to be whether or not those values must be in relation
to,
or as revealed from, a god of some sort...

Because, again, you can't explain to me what "good" means. Why, to your
mind, is "Thou shalt not murder" more good than "Thou shalt kill on
whim."

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

--
Micha Berger Today is the 43rd day, which is
micha@xxxxxxxxxxx 6 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org Chesed sheb'Malchus: How does unity result in
Fax: (270) 514-1507 good for all mankind?


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Endurantists vs Perdurantism
    ... It remains the case that actually saying which is which has nothing to ... Suppose, that there are basic empirical beliefs, that is, emperical ... the justification of a supposed basic empirical belief depends on the ... Nobody is forcing him to rob banks. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Science versus religion fnord
    ... The justification itself though is somewhat interesting. ... There are solid biological reasons for this. ... community. ... This is a little long-winded way of saying that I still am not sure ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Willis post match interview link?
    ... there is little justification for the writer's waxing eloquent about Botham while giving Willis just a cursory mention. ... now I am just not paying enough attention before saying stupid things:) Sorry about that. ... Yeah, I guess as a batsman, he can be forgiven for admiring Botham's inning more than Willis's effort. ... inadvisable for players to rant at the media like that. ...
    (rec.sport.cricket)
  • Re: Hitchens on religion
    ... whether one "questions the directives" or not, an O Jew obeys, correct? ... If he chooses to be O. But that's just saying that someone who chooses ... but most churches laud the leap of faith. ... Justification doesn't mean "proof". ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Fort Hood and the Academic Apologists
    ... for moral justification for what he was driven to ... First off, George Bush never stood up on a fucking table, screamed the ... Second, you HAVE blamed Christianity for Bush going into Iraq, on many ... Muslims for their oil. ...
    (rec.martial-arts)
Loading