People much smarter than I, and certainly smarter than JP, including the great philosophers, have long debated the mind/body problem. It is difficult for us to fathom that we are essentially just bags of organic material. The mind/body issue is parallel to the question of whether life itself is just a collection of chemical reactions, or is there some other non-physical essence that adds another layer to our existance.
JP claims that the soul exists based on 2 observations. First, our self-awareness. We feel ourselves to exist, as something inside us but separate from our bodies. This is a very compelling argument. Rene Descarte eloquently argued for dualism, that the mind and the brain were essentially separate entities. Most modern philosophers acknowledge that the mind is comprised only of the material physical brain. This self-awareness, although a non-physical concept, is simply a function of the brain.
JP's second claim is that our sense of "free will" proves the existence of a soul.
I think much depends on how one defines a soul, and herein lies the problem. If one asserts the existence of a soul, then he is required to define and describe what he is talking about. JP likens the soul to a radio transmitter, with the brain as a receiver. This is certainly an interesting analogy, but it is nonetheless a silly assertion for which there is no evidence. It is sort of what people who claim to have clairvoyance claim. In fact, the evidence would mitigate against such a "transmitter". Besides the obvious distinction from radio waves, which can be measured and observed indirectly, consider the following problems and contradictions inherent in this argument:
1. Where was the soul before the person was born? Did it always exist? Was it born when the person was born? If so, why doesn't it die when the person dies?
2. When a person is mentally ill, or incapacitated, is the soul similarly mentally ill? Since JP asserts that a person's free will and self-awareness are part of the soul, when a person doesn't have these things, does the soul continue to exist and have free will?
3. What about non-humans? Do they have souls, too? Although they don't have the same level of thought and self-awareness as we do, they certainly have feelings, desires, and fears.
Basically, the argument for a soul is like Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot. Its an authority-based assertion without evidence, that cannot be tested and is not falsifiable, and therefore the burden of proof is on he who claims the existence of a soul, not one who denies it. Before the advent of modern cell biology and biochemistry, man could not fathom many physiologic processes in animals. They seemed like magic. Now we understand them, and they can be readily explained on the basis of known physical laws. Morever, these explanations are specific and readily testable, and can be used to make predictions. We can posit a chemical explanation for a certain disease, then test the effect of a drug that we know affects this process and observe its effect on the disease. Similarly, neurobiology is steadily unlocking the biological and electrochemical basis of many cognitive functions, such as mental illness, memory, sensation, and emotions.
Interestingly, the biblical and rabbinic ancients, who claimed to be connected to the spiritual world and thus in possession of the knowledge that a "soul" exists, don't answer these questions. Why? For the very simple reason that they were ignorant. They simply didn't know. They were guessing, because they understood so little about the physical world around them.
If I can explain these phenomena on the basis of physical principles, what good does it do to add an additional "layer" to the explanation by adding a "soul"? This is Occam's Razor. A soul is simply unnecessary in order to explain things. JP will answer of course, that the Torah and rabbis tell us that there is a soul, an afterlife, and hell, because he has to. For without an afterlife, it is obvious that there is no justice on this earth, so justice must be served in the afterlife. It is also a good scare tactic which was used by the rabbis against ignorant ancient people, to coerce them into compliance. JP also likes to use it as a threat against us skeptics, who are condemned to burn in hell forever. Perhaps it helps as a consolation to him, thinking that there will be a heavenly reward for all of the sacrifices he has made in his own personal life on behalf of an imagined god.
Another claim that comes up repeatedly in JP's post is that without God or Torah, there is no morality, no conscience, leaving us to be just a brutal and viscious people. This assertion is blatantly wrong and ignores everything that we have learned in the past 100 years about psychology and sociology. Man has a conscience, and it has nothing to do with religion. I do not deny that people can have violent impulses, or that they do bad things. But as a social animal, he has evolved modes of thinking and behaviors that help the species survive as a group and perpetuate their genes. These traits include empathy and self-sacrifice for loved ones and close friends. Morality extends this natural empathy, by social agreement, to larger groups-- community, co-religionists, or a nation. The traits of conscience and morality give survival advantage and in fact support the theory or natural selection.
JP's claims about having no guilt or conscience without god, would suggest that he is a psychopath. Pyschopaths have a personality disorder, in which they have no natural empathy towards other people, and thus no conscience or guilt in regards to causing other people to suffer. Research has shown that these people suffer from defects in a specific parts of their brains. So I challenge JP to deny being a psychopath, by acknowledging that he, along with other normal people, have natural feelings of empathy, guilt and conscience, having nothing to do with God. For if Jacob Stein denies this, he is in fact a psychopath (as well as being woefully ignorant about psychology and many other things).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
> First, our self-awareness. We feel ourselves to exist, as something inside us but separate from our bodies. This is a very compelling argument.
Compelling emotionally because it is based on our perceptions, but not compelling scientifically, as there is absolutely no evidence to support the hypothesis that the “soul” exists independently of the body. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that our consciousness, personality, abilities, etc. are emergent properties of our brains.
The best anecdotal example is the story of Phineas Gage, the railroad foreman who went from being a responsible, likeable, family-values individual to an irresponsible, nasty, skirt-chasing drunk when a railroad spike blew through his head and tore out part of his cerebral cortex.
Dementia patients are also an example of people changing completely when there are changes in their brain. So is the use of psychotropic drugs to control mental disorders and even change things that most people would consider basic to personality, like shyness.
> JP's second claim is that our sense of "free will" proves the existence of a soul.
Our sense of free will is most probably an illusion. Anyway, this amounts to circular reasoning. Only humans have free will in Jewish theology. The rest of Creation is subject directly to God’s will. What gives us this special property of free will? Our neshamos. How do we know we have neshamos? Because we have free will. Why do we have free will? Because we have neshamos. How do we know we have neshamos? Because we have free will…
> consider the following problems and contradictions inherent in this argument:
There are actually answers in sefarim for all of these.
> 1. Where was the soul before the person was born? Did it always exist? Was it born when the person was born? If so, why doesn't it die when the person dies?
The soul is eternal. It was created during the shieshes yemai beraishis, and “lives” in Shomayim until it is attached to a human being. Depending on your kabbalistic beliefs, souls may be reincarnated over and over until they successfully fulfill their mission. There may be a very limited number of souls,with each soul attached to multiple people. Or each soul may be intended for a specific person and meant for a specific life.
> 2. When a person is mentally ill, or incapacitated, is the soul similarly mentally ill? Since JP asserts that a person's free will and self-awareness are part of the soul, when a person doesn't have these things, does the soul continue to exist and have free will?
As I understand it, the belief is that when the physical body is flawed, the connection with the soul is affected. To use JP’s analogy, if your receiver is damaged you’re going to get a garbled signal with a lot of static, even if the transmitter is functioning perfectly.
As you pointed out, such a claim violates Occam’s Razor. There is no need to posit a flawed connection to the soul when the physical flaws in the brain by themselves account for the disorder.
> 3. What about non-humans? Do they have souls, too? Although they don't have the same level of thought and self-awareness as we do, they certainly have feelings, desires, and fears.
Non-humans have a nefesh, an animating spirit, but not a neshama, a divine soul.
The best argument is that there is simply no evidence that there is a soul. Our consciousness is wholly accounted for by our brains, and suffers when our brains are damaged.
> Interestingly, the biblical and rabbinic ancients, who claimed to be connected to the spiritual world and thus in possession of the knowledge that a "soul" exists, don't answer these questions. Why?
Because it never occurred to them. The soul was the only possible explanation for consciousness, and was as real to them as their arms. The ancients didn’t really know what the brain did, and would probably have thought it ridiculous that a couple of pounds of squishy gray stuff could be responsible for consciousness, let alone human intellect and creativity.
> JP also likes to use it as a threat against us skeptics, who are condemned to burn in hell forever.
His second-favorite line, right after accusations of drugs and whoring. Too bad for him that the Hell he loves to threaten with is the Christian one.
>If one asserts the existence of a soul, then he is required to define and describe what he is talking about.
Why is one required? I posit that a God exists. Now, how do I go by in defining and describing him? Same with a soul. This isn't a scientific claim. Hence this:
1. Where was the soul before the person was born? Did it always exist? Was it born when the person was born? If so, why doesn't it die when the person dies?
2. When a person is mentally ill, or incapacitated, is the soul similarly mentally ill? Since JP asserts that a person's free will and self-awareness are part of the soul, when a person doesn't have these things, does the soul continue to exist and have free will?
3. What about non-humans? Do they have souls, too? Although they don't have the same level of thought and self-awareness as we do, they certainly have feelings, desires, and fears.
doesn't work. I mean, this is scientific thinking. It doesn't fit into theological questions. They will always but heads.
>It is also a good scare tactic which was used by the rabbis against ignorant ancient people, to coerce them into compliance.
Why the need to be cynical? Is this just an outcome of 21st century thinking? It's also rather anachronistic in painting akin to something like Jim Jones brainwashing people. Why the need to coerce if EVERYONE believed in a soul back then? You are imagining some Top_Bottom scenerio from a few tribal leaders creating some notion out of a vacuum.
>there is no morality
I don't believe JP's extreme assertions about Torah are correct, but I also beleive we have to define what we mean by morality. Are we simply talking about killing and stealing? Then I would say you are most likely right. But a moral life consists of much more then just that.
Actually the works of the Maharal deal with the nature, origin and properties of the soul in great depth and answer all your concerning questions.
>Actually the works of the Maharal deal with the nature, origin and properties of the soul in great depth and answer all your concerning questions.
You are confusing "answers" (ie, as something concrete) with "opinions." I respect opinions, as long as we know it to be just that.
> this is scientific thinking. It doesn't fit into theological questions.
That's exactly the sort of thing that's a problem. Why shouldn't we investigate theological questions scientifically?
"Why is one required? I posit that a God exists. Now, how do I go by in defining and describing him? Same with a soul. This isn't a scientific claim."
This is a question of philosophy and epistomology. If I claim the existence of an entity, I have to define and describe it enough so people know what I am talking about and can argue about its truth. Otherwise it is a useless statement, because I can't examine the claim, can't make predictions, can't do experiments. And yes, claim about god are subject to the scientific method,as they are making very specific claims about the nature of life and the world.
The claim that religious assertions are not subject to scientific inquiry is evasion. I'm not talking about moral claims, but rather statements about the nature of life and the universe.
From my perspective, claims about the soul are little different from ancient beliefs about evil spirits causing mental illness. At least that had the advantage of being able to do something about it--to expunge the spirit. But the idea of the soul contributes nothing to our understanding, other than giving consolation to death.
I have no problem using the term "soul" to describe a person's personality, essence, and life force. But when the person dies, so does his soul.
>That's exactly the sort of thing that's a problem. Why shouldn't we investigate theological questions scientifically?
Because if the nature of what you want to investigate is by definition not something that science can measure or grasp, then one cannot investigate it. I know this sounds cliche already, but I don't see any other simpler way of laying it down. A soul, or even God, by definition is not some physical or psychological manifistation that can be measured.
>The claim that religious assertions are not subject to scientific inquiry is evasion.
Yes, I beleive that is modern mans way of approaching anything relating to the "God world" but it can't be helped. You believe it to be evasion, then, I guess, so be it. But by definition, some things not of this physical existance (to the believer) are not going to be be able to be pinned down to a dictionary definition where we can dissect it, put it to a Bunsen burner and test it. So yes, they are making a claim about "life" but not the "life" that we typically implore this standard of testing. Again, by definition.
>But the idea of the soul contributes nothing to our understanding, other than giving consolation to death.
What's there to understand? Lets say you came to the conclusion, that there is a God. I don't know, some direct prophesy came true about the sky turning green. Ok, has this contributed to your understanding of God? In the end, what changed? You still don't understand anything.
>That's exactly the sort of thing that's a problem. Why shouldn't we investigate theological questions scientifically?
BTW- you can definitely try of course. But what comes out of it? Did you prove God, disprove God? Prove a soul, disprove a soul?
Its not even a question of science. Its about how modern man acquires any kind of knowledge about the world around him-- by inductive or deductive logic, observation, or developing a hypothesis and testing it. The soul hypothesis is not accessible to any of these. The only reason that people have come to believe in a soul is because ancient authorities said that it exists. So other than an authority based argument, can you come up with any other reason why we should believe it?
This is beyond my range of philisophical discourse of course. I would say, a sense of consciousness, that life has meaning outside of just this. The fact that if you believe in a good God, more or less, you will come to believe that there is something after this existence (which would require something of a soul or call it what you want).
I think we are merely going around in circles. I believe you are coming from an axiomatic approach that a soul, is a hypothesis, no different then a hypothesis of botony. I simply reject that. It's just two different realities, so to speak. Also, I reject the notion of a soul coming from an authority based argument. Seems too anachronistic to believe that some cult leader came and convinced many people of a soul. No, I think the concept of a soul always existed within everyone. Religion was what was created around it to help explain these concepts.
All of JP's life views are along this line. Similar to your post, he asserts that only because of religion do married men not cheat on their spouses. I find this view very interesting, as I don't cheat, and it's got nothing to do with religion. It's because I love my wife and wouldn't want to ruin our relationship. However, I have wondered whether JP, given the views he has expressed, is stuck in a loveless sad marriage, in which the only thing that keeps him from straying is his fear of god. Sounds like a pretty sad life to me.
> God, by definition is not some physical or psychological manifistation that can be measured.
Incidentally, God most probably is a psychological manifestation, similar to the psychological effects that produce belief in UFOs, ghosts, and other paranormal nonsense.
> But by definition, some things not of this physical existence
A baseless assumption. If something is, as you say, “not of this physical existence,” then how do you know it’s real? We are physical beings who can only interact with the physically perceptible world. Even emotional reactions to religious experiences are physical, and can be measured by MRI.
> I would say, a sense of consciousness, that life has meaning outside of just this.
A feeling that there is more to life than the world we see does not constitute evidence of any sort. It is more likely an appeal to consequences. A person reasons, “A limited lifespan in this world seems kind of pointless, ultimately. My life can’t be pointless. Therefore, God and the Afterlife exist, and I am really part of something bigger.”
> The fact that if you believe in a good God, more or less, you will come to believe that there is something after this existence (which would require something of a soul or call it what you want).
See point above, but anyway it is easily possible to believe in a god, even a good one, without a belief in any sort of afterlife. The Jewish people managed it until the end of the 2nd Temple period. Then there’s also the possibility that the afterlife is a lousy place, like the Greek conception of Hades or the underworld in the Epic of Gilgamesh.
> Also, I reject the notion of a soul coming from an authority based argument. Seems too anachronistic to believe that some cult leader came and convinced many people of a soul.
This is a watered down version of the Kuzari proof.
First, it is likely that the concept of a soul evolved slowly over time and spread around the world. The idea that there is life after death is very old, going back into prehistory. If I remember correctly there have been finds of early humans buried with treasured possessions like tools and jewelry, which is taken as evidence that they had some notion that the deceased would use those items in the afterlife.
I’ve seen it theorized that the idea of people living on after death may have first started through he phenomenon we all experience where we can “hear” someone who isn’t present. You’re mother’s voice nagging you to put on a sweater, thinking about how much your friend would enjoy this if he were here…
Second, people are gullible. Really gullible. Remember the people who thought they were going to get a ride on spaceship that was hiding behind a comet? Or any Scientologist. Though unlikely in the case of souls, it is entirely possible for people to believe something ridiculous if the presenter is charismatic and convincing. Then all that is needed is time for the originator fo the idea to be forgotten and for the idea to spread and grow.
>Incidentally, God most probably is a psychological manifestation, similar to the psychological effects that produce belief in UFOs, ghosts, and other paranormal nonsense.
That's from your standpoint, which I won't argue about. In any case, if you ARE arguing with a believer, then you have to go by his defenition of a diety and by his definition It is not something measurable.
>A baseless assumption. If something is, as you say, “not of this physical existence,” then how do you know it’s real? We are physical beings who can only interact with the physically perceptible world. Even emotional reactions to religious experiences are physical, and can be measured by MRI.
But I am not talking about an emotion reaction which CAN be measured, I am talking about an entity that cannot. By your standards, a God is non existent, but if you are arguing with a believer about why you can't put the same scientific standard to God as you would do a fern, then, like I said above, you have to go by his definition and by his definition, a God simply is of a different existence. Whether there IS a God or not, that at least has to be understood for any such argument.
>See point above, but anyway it is easily possible to believe in a god, even a good one, without a belief in any sort of afterlife.
Anything is Possible. Its possible God is Ra and he awaits for us with the rest of the Gods. The point is if one believes in the "traditional" monotheistic concept of a God and the notion of a final justice, the believing in a soul is not farfetched and infact is quite reasonable.
>The Jewish people managed it until the end of the 2nd Temple period.
Conjecture and nothing but conjecture. You really think the Hebrews didn't believe in some sort of afterlife, even it was different? The only group we have are the sadducees and that info comes from only one biased set of sources.
>Then there’s also the possibility that the afterlife is a lousy place, like the Greek conception of Hades or the underworld in the Epic of Gilgamesh.
Could be. But that doesn't negate a soul.
> In any case, if you ARE arguing with a believer, then you have to go by his defenition of a diety and by his definition It is not something measurable.
I see your point, but then the argument becomes, as DrJ likes to say, “Who cares?” If the deity doesn’t interact with the world in any way, then what difference does it make if He exists or not? If He does interact with the world, then we should be able to quantify and measure His actions.
If we need to worry about God’s existence because of the possibility of an afterlife, than there are other problems. If God, by definition, presents no physical evidence, then how are we to tell which religion is right? Especially because most of them are mutually exclusive. In the end it has to come down to faith, and faith, once you strip away the virtuous veneer given to it by religion, is kind of foolish. As the old joke goes, “In God we trust, everyone else pays cash.” But why does God (religion, really) get special treatment?
> But I am not talking about an emotion reaction which CAN be measured, I am talking about an entity that cannot.
My comment about emotions was because of all those people who “know” God exists because they feel a connection to Him. The point was that we can measure the reaction and even are beginning to understand how it arises.
> You really think the Hebrews didn't believe in some sort of afterlife, even it was different?
All right, they believed in techiyos hameisim. All the dead were to come back to life at the end of time. But that isn’t an afterlife of the soul living in Heaven as is typically believed today.
>If He does interact with the world, then we should be able to quantify and measure His actions.
It really depends on how you conceive of this God. The vast majority of incidents of God in Tanach, are basically all total natural occurrences, yet its understood that He is actually behind it some way. When God wants to punish the Israelites, a natural phenomenon called an invading army comes to attack, and not some celestial hand from the sky. So again, how do we measure it?
>If God, by definition, presents no physical evidence, then how are we to tell which religion is right? Especially because most of them are mutually exclusive.
Well, I think that is a separate question and one that I believe Man makes too much of a big deal here. If you postulate that there IS a God, and that there should be SOME one true religion, then by default it goes hand in hand with believing that this God placed you in whatever culture you were born into and He won't hold you liable. I think action is much more important. But i also want to say that they are not so mutually exclusive. Most overlap. The big Three all have a 1) A God that created, 2) that still interacts 3) there is at the end justice.
>My comment about emotions was because of all those people who “know” God exists because they feel a connection to Him. The point was that we can measure the reaction and even are beginning to understand how it arises.
Oh, of course, but it doesn't make it less real or even foolish. Surely doesn't prove anything, but who am I to destroy someone's most basic human emotion of wanting to connect to their creator?
>All right, they believed in techiyos hameisim. All the dead were to come back to life at the end of time. But that isn’t an afterlife of the soul living in Heaven as is typically believed today.
I have no idea what they believed. Sheol is mentioned a few times as some place that ALL go to (at least that is the theory). So yes, WHAT this afterlife is has always changed, but an afterlife concept of a soul has existed.
> The vast majority of incidents of God in Tanach, are basically all total natural occurrences, yet its understood that He is actually behind it some way.
The problems with reducing God to manipulating the laws of nature without ever breaking them is 1) the laws of nature are entirely mechanistic, and if we could measure all of the contributing variables we would be able to predict any given event. There is no room for manipulation, which leads to 2) it makes God irrelevant.
> God placed you in whatever culture you were born into and He won't hold you liable.
This is a nice idea, and I’m inclined to agree with you. But most religions don’t. The closest Judaism comes is the concept of the tinok shenishba, and that’s more a case of, “We can’t hold him responsible because he didn’t know any better.” Most brands of Christianity believe that anyone who doesn’t accept Jesus is damned. Fundamentalist Islam believes that infidels are to be converted or killed. Pagans were more tolerant of other people’s gods, but even they thought their own gods were the best, the true gods.
> But i also want to say that they are not so mutually exclusive
They have similarities, but they are mutually exclusive because they are often exclusive, especially the monotheistic religions. Avoda zara is one of the big three yarog v’lo yaver.
> Oh, of course, but it doesn't make it less real or even foolish.
The emotion is real, sure, but so what. As far as foolish, it’s hard to say that about emotions, as they are almost by definition non-rational.
> Surely doesn't prove anything, but who am I to destroy someone's most basic human emotion of wanting to connect to their creator?
You’re nicer than I am :) Not that I go around trying to convince people of my religious views, but if someone is arguing with me, I’m not going to let them make points because showing them where they’re wrong is going to destroy emotional attachments to God. If anything, getting rid of the emotions may let them think rationally about their beliefs. Though I’m probably overstating my persuasiveness here.
> I have no idea what they believed. Sheol is mentioned a few times as some place that ALL go to
I can’t site sources, so you’re free to ignore me or tell me I’m wrong, but I remember reading that the Jews first believed that they would be reincarnated at the end of time, then developed a belief in Heaven, then awkwardly merged the two. Sheol is the common conception of the afterlife in the ANE as a warehouse for souls.
> So yes, WHAT this afterlife is has always changed, but an afterlife concept of a soul has existed.
I mentioned before that apparently very early humans already had some concept of the afterlife, as evidenced by their burying objects with their dead for use in the next world.
>The problems with reducing God to manipulating the laws of nature without ever breaking them is 1) the laws of nature are entirely mechanistic, and if we could measure all of the contributing variables we would be able to predict any given event. There is no room for manipulation, which leads to 2) it makes God irrelevant.
As a side note, there will ALWAYS be variables that we won't be able to predict. But anyways, this is where a believer splits from an atheist I guess. The whole story of David's sin started way before him seeing Bath Sheba, it started with him trying to make Peace with Ammon which was against Torah Law. From this, everything spirals downwards and the writer and the reader understands this is the "hand' of God playing its course. "How" exactly? I have no idea, because I am not God to know these things. Atheists will say this is a cop out. Ok. I can't argue with that. I come from a different perspective of how God interacts with this world.
>This is a nice idea, and I’m inclined to agree with you. But most religions don’t. The closest Judaism comes is the concept of the tinok shenishba, and that’s more a case of, “We can’t hold him responsible because he didn’t know any better.”
Well, there are two other ideas in play as well in Judaism that I have always heard, (even from Charedim). Its that obviously you don't have to be Jewish, but keep your religion as long as you are moral. And two, (and this relates to the first) that they at least have to keep the 7 noahide laws, which many believe that most non-jews keep anyways for the most part, and inevitably keep them moral. We also see in passages in our own scripture (Amos) that God saved other peoples of the world.
>Most brands of Christianity believe that anyone who doesn’t accept Jesus is damned. Fundamentalist Islam believes that infidels are to be converted or killed.
I agree there are indeed. Most non evangelical Christians that I know do not feel this way at all and I am sure that there are Islamic ideas, sans-fundamentalist that don't feel others need to be converted. Again, this is the fault of man being idiots with their religion that they feel people are damned as opposed to the fault of God.
>The emotion is real, sure, but so what. As far as foolish, it’s hard to say that about emotions, as they are almost by definition non-rational.
Within the scope of a more academic sort of thinking, you are right. It's not rational. But its just as human. And the existence of its indeed rational (hope that makes sense)
>If anything, getting rid of the emotions may let them think rationally about their beliefs. Though I’m probably overstating my persuasiveness here.
I'm sure you are persuasive, but I think most people in their day to day dreary lives, are quite rational. We all basically do the same things. If someone's (non rational) emotional attachment to God helps them live a richer life, then really, thats all there is to it. After all, if by your standard, there is NOTHING else, then why NOT have people add a little spice to their life? Ofcourse, like you said before, "faith" has to be approached with caution. But really, any active belief that man touches has to be approached with caution.
>I can’t site sources, so you’re free to ignore me or tell me I’m wrong, but I remember reading that the Jews first believed that they would be reincarnated at the end of time, then developed a belief in Heaven, then awkwardly merged the two. Sheol is the common conception of the afterlife in the ANE as a warehouse for souls.
who knows!
> As a side note, there will ALWAYS be variables that we won't be able to predict.
True, but irrelevant. Our ability (or lack thereof) to measure a variable doesn’t affect its influence.
> you don't have to be Jewish, but keep your religion as long as you are moral.
Except when the religion includes something we consider idol worship, which almost all of them do.
> at least have to keep the 7 noahide laws,
This is an argument against your original point, that the fact God put you in whatever culture/religion you find yourself is a reason in itself to hold of that religion. If someone is born in a culture that rejects one of the shava mitzvos bnie noach, he is culpable according to Judaism.
> I'm sure you are persuasive
Why, thank you :)
> I think most people in their day to day dreary lives, are quite rational.
Not as much as you’d think, but here we’re slipping into semantics. This is the difference between irrational as commonly understood: something foolish for which there is no good reason; and non-rational: something that is not well thought-out or is based on fallacious beliefs.
Most people are not irrational or foolish, but most of the things we do (myself included) are non-rational in the sense that we don’t really think things through and just act on our instincts.
> If someone's (non rational) emotional attachment to God helps them live a richer life, then really, thats all there is to it. After all, if by your standard, there is NOTHING else, then why NOT have people add a little spice to their life?
I really don’t care what people think. I debate on blogs because its fun. But there are definite downsides to religion. One is that most religious people do not have a live-and-let-live attitude. Most aren’t as rude about it as the evangelicals who preach on the subway, but they are all (ok, most) convinced that their religion is Truth, and you had better agree with them. I object to others telling me what to believe, and looking down on me because I don’t agree with them.
Also, religion has costs. I suppose we could do a cost-benefit analysis for each person to see whether religion is worth it for them, but it doesn’t work that way in the real world.
>Except when the religion includes something we consider idol worship, which almost all of them do.
Eh, the jury is out whether for example Christianity is idol worship. Rambam considered Christianity a definite step up in a positive direction and concluded Islam for sure is not.
>This is an argument against your original point, that the fact God put you in whatever culture/religion you find yourself is a reason in itself to hold of that religion. If someone is born in a culture that rejects one of the shava mitzvos bnie noach, he is culpable according to Judaism.
No, what I meant is that the 7 is a means to a moral society, which IS what God cares about. Now, I think this is all academic. I don't think any society is actually GOING to say they are about to keep the 7. But when looking at how societies already are living, I would say the end goal of the 7 are pretty much in line. I go back to my example of the Book of Amos where it says God saved neighboring nations, who for sure idol worshipped.
As far as Christianity is concerned, the concensus seems to be, it depends. Different sects have different beleifs. But most religions are avoda zara, even if teh two most popular are not.
The goals of the sheva mitzvos is unclear. Most do seem to be about a moral society. But the prohibtion of idol worship and blasphemy have nothing to do with morality. And the morality of various sexual acts is really subjective. Can one rationally explain most of the sexual prhibitions?
>Can one rationally explain most of the sexual prhibitions?
You mean other then the "Yick" factor?
So, forgetting about legal issues, would you say there IS a rational reason NOT to have sex with animals for example? I think, rationally, so what if a person wants to have sex with his horse, but what sort of person does he become afterwards?
> would you say there IS a rational reason NOT to have sex with animals for example?
No, unless it causes undue pain to the animal.
> what sort of person does he become afterwards?
The sort of person who likes to have sex with animals.
That I find something icky isn't a good reason to forbid someone else to do it.
Post a Comment