Wilfrid

Oh, so would Quine. He didn't say he believed in the Greek gods, just that the claims for their existence weren't different in kind from scientific claims. But it really doesn't matter...

Well, Macrosan, the American philosopher Quine would have agreed with you. He thought belief in the ancient gods of Greece was not different in kind from belief in the laws of physics, although he expressed a strong preference for placing the latter at the centre of his epistemic web. Er, I have to say that a lot of people would disagree with you too. Steve P., yes you read me right more or less, and I think we do agree about this. In deference to Professor Johnson's earlier points though, I do concede that many different religious and secular beliefs can co-exist peacefully, albeit unreconciled.

Try what? You said that the truth of a priori claims could not be conclusively determined, from which I inferred that either you had a radical new theory of logic to offer (unlikely) or you didn't know what the term meant (surprising, but excluding the other possibility...). 2+2=4 was an example of an a priori claim the truth of which is rarely questioned. "All bachelors are male" is an non-mathematical example. I doubt whether there are any interesting a priori truths in ethics, although it's child's play to invent insubstantial tautologies ("It's good to do what's right..."). So...?

Steven you don't know what a priori claims are. 2+2=4 is an a priori claim. A priori claims are rational. Some people think all a priori claims are tautologous, other don't, but we don't really need to get into the technicalities. Suffice to say that a priori claims are part of any model of rational discourse I can think of. The point is not where I stand on cannibalism (don't worry, I'm with the mainstream), but whether one can have a reasonable discussion about whether it's a good thing or not. I believe one can. One cannot have a reasonable discussion about "truths" derived from divine revelation - either you have faith in the revelation or you don't.

I don't find draft Guinness in the States to be noticeably different from draft Guinness in the UK. I hesitate to compare it with draft Guinness in Ireland, as it's many years since I've drunk at the source.

A priori claims are different from faith-based claims. The claim that it's God's law that Jews should keep kosher is not an a priori claim. There may be some a priori claims underlying the case for vegetarianism (or communism or capitalism) and there will be plenty of empirical claims too. You are going to have to offer an example of a faith-based claim, because I can't think of any which are essential to those cases.

No.

Look, nine out of ten people can't manage a rational discussion, animal activists or not. This is logically separate from the point that the question of animal rights is a suitable topic for rational discussion, whereas the question of what God thinks about animals is not.

Fair enough, Professor J, let me try to state it more precisely without actually writing an essay: I do not believe that all, or even most, differences of view between religions and between the religious and secular parts of society, will ever rise to the level of conflict. I do believe that the project of reconciling even just mainstream religious beliefs with each other and with the secular organization of society should be recognized as intrinsically flawed (and I do mean intrinsically rather than contingently) and should therefore be abandoned. I should have said that the impossibility of rational discussion promotes conflict, rather than implied that it makes conflict inevitable. And the Bloke writes: "How would you categorize, for example, a conflict between atheistic members of PETA and atheistic pig-farmers on the issue of vegetarianism? Would you say it has a rational solution? How about the conflict between capitalism and communism? Rational solution? We can all just sit down and talk about it, and thanks to secular humanism the capitalists and the communists, the animal-rights activists and the pig-farmers, will work everything out and reach a resolution?" Solution is a step too far. What I do believe tis that there is a model of rational discourse within which vegetarianism, for example, or political economy, or let's say abortion, can be discussed; I accept that any resolution may be remote, but at least the participants know what a reason looks like, what cause and effect implies, and can substantiate their claims through argument. The argument that something is so because it is God's law or will falls squarely outside that model of rational discourse. The position of faith - very well described by Macrosan is one which cannot be debated.

I am not sure I can take a mystic Macrosan on an empty stomach.

No I'm not. Conflict is not inevitable. I am just saying that while it's possible to have a rational discussion about whether pork is nourishing, it is not possible to have a rational discussion about whether Catholics correctly interpret God's law by eating or whether Jews correctly interpret God's law by not eating, or whether God has some reason to permit this person to eat pork but not the next person. Most such disagreements needn't rise to the level of a dispute (as Steven rightly observes). Equally clearly, some are minefields.

Steven, I think we essentially agree. What has changed in my thinking over the last ten years is that I now perceive that rigorous constraints on pluralism are needed. The key phrase is "reach an accommodation when we can". There are many widely held religious beliefs which cannot be accommodated with a "free", democratic, secular society. The real conundrum is how to constrain pluralism without tyrannically expunging difference.

You know, I used to love mayo on my frites. Recently, however, I have found it cloying. Old age, perhaps.

You are all missing my devastatingly telling point. Conflicts have many causes. However, while disputes between secular belief systems have the potential for rational resolution, disputes between religions, or between religions and secular belief systems, do not.

Fucking "mild looking".

I do understand what Macrosan's saying, and I think it was similar to Fat Bloke's comment to me slightly earlier. It seems to me to be an entirely sufficient answer within religious terms. That God forbids eating pork must be enough for a believer, and I can now why it's frivolous to ask for an additional layer of practical or symbolic explanation. This is an example of a religious practice which locates itself outside the bounds of rational discourse. As is clear, there are a number of mutually inconsistent dietary regimes associated with different religions, and no criteria to judge whether one regime represents God's will more accurately than another (or perhaps God intends some people to eat pork and others not to). I think I've got it. With all respect, though, it only increases my conviction that society, if it is to survive, must be organized along secular lines. The alternative is simply war between irreconcilable faiths.

That certainly confirms what I read ( I think it was in Sokolow's "Fading Feasts", but my memory is fallible). No reason for the rules. I take your point(s): I am applying what I thought was a very broad idea of what "religious" means, but it might not be broad enough. I shall have to think about this.

The last meal the Romanovs ate might not have been terribly appealing.

Over the course of New Year, that has become lodged in my mind as a serious proposal.

Eek, and not only the Jews, Tony. That brings back some memories. Bridge rolls. But I remember a small chain of Jewish bakers in London that produced rather pleasant filled bridge rolls - Grodzynsky's (spelling?).

I recently read a description of what was involved in turning a non-kosher kitchen into a kosher kitchen, and in doing so learnt a little more about the subject. What profoundly puzzled me, as an outsider, was that I could see no link - logical, functional or even metaphorical - between the specifics of kashrut and the religious precepts I would associate with Judaism. To make an analogy - although I don't believe in transubtantiation, when a Catholic eats bread and drinks wine in holy communion, I can fully understand the intended religious significance of the ritual. I couldn't see anything about kasrut which made it a religious practice rather than a somewhat arbitrary lifestyle. Am I missing something?

Thank you, Nina. I hope you are sitting comfortably.

It's on Central Park South, and I am afraid it is priced accordingly. Entrees will be in the upper thirties. This is one restaurant where a "tasting menu" turns out to be a good deal; it's usually four courses for around $65, considerably cheaper than the carte. The pricing is shameless; owner Tony May would clearly be happy with a restaurant full of free-spending millionaires, and he's at least halfway there.

Port's not that strong. Three healthy people should be able to polish off a bottle over cheese. Trust me.