Religious Dietary Laws

[SobaAddict70]

Ok, help me here. (btw, before anyone corrects me, I'm using my own term for God here, as applied to my own belief system.)

Assuming that Being is omnipotent, benevolent and omniscient:

A. In Genesis, Being creates existence. That includes plants, animals, etc. In Genesis, there is an injunction that man is a steward for all these things and that he may use and consume all that there is. And this is done for the sake of the good. In fact, a necessary implication is that anything created by Being is inherently good and serves a function in existence -- because if this isn't the case, that implies that Being is imperfect which turns the entire premise of Being on its head.

B. In Exodus, Being proclaims that He is the God of the Israelites and their descendants and makes a covenant with them, blah blah blah. Therefore, the dietary laws associated with the covenant are meant for the people of the covenant and no other. When Being is saying that an animal is unclean or unfit for human consumption, it conflicts with "A" above. Its unclean to whom? Being? (That can't be, if you take "A" at face value. Being can't make an unclean animal, by definition.)

And that's the heart of my problem (which more or less overlaps a bit with Steve's problem). Religion is a man-made construct that exists to serve a function such that man is able to put a face to the unknowable. It brings comfort to his existence. People have argued that the Bible is a literal record of the history of Being, that the laws in the second, third and fourth books of the Pentateuch (sp) are the Word of God as transmitted through a human vessel. (My response, that if the Word of Being is filtered through a human vessel, then that introduces a minute amount of imperfection in transcribing the Word, because humans are supposed to be imperfect versions of Being, right?)

SA

edit: added afterthought

Edited January 2, 2003 by SobaAddict70 (log)

[g.johnson]

If spirituality dervives from genes, who created those genes so to operate ?

Natural selection. In this interview

Dr. [David Sloan] Wilson argues that the religious impulse evolved early in hominid history because it helped make groups of humans comparatively more cohesive, more cooperative and more fraternal, and thus able to present a formidable front against bands of less organized or unified adversaries.

[Wilfrid]

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.

[Fat Guy]

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.

Get back to me after you've had a conversation with a militant animal-rights activist.

[Wilfrid]

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.

[Fat Guy]

Don't both require certain a priori assumptions that ultimately cannot be proven -- that must be taken on faith?

[Wilfrid]

No.

[Fat Guy]

Yes!

[Wilfrid]

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.

[g.johnson]

Animals have souls too.

Not essential to all arguments for vegetarianism, but the basis of some.

Edited January 2, 2003 by g.johnson (log)

[macrosan]

If spirituality dervives from genes, who created those genes so to operate ?

Natural selection. ....

Yes, Prof, but natural selection from what, and who created the process of natural selection ?

My point is that science denies the creation of something from nothing, therefore it has to believe that something has always existed. But if the oldest thing that science knows about is (let's say) the universe, then science by definition cannot explain what existed before the universe, and from which the universe was naturally selected, or evolved, or whatever. I'm simply suggesting that the something that science knows nothing about might well be what non-scientific believers call "God".

At the very least, a scientist should acknowledge the probability, even if not the certainty, that there are some thoroughly fundamental issues behind and around our existence which we cannot even begin to explain with our current knowledge. The concepts of God, and religion, and faith, are simply ways to attemopt to acknowledge our ignorance, and are surely as valid as mid-20th Century scientists' faith in the concepts of black holes and quasars and the Theory of Relativity.

[Fat Guy]

But Wilfrid, it is impossible to determine conclusively the truth of an a priori claim. That's why it's an a priori claim. You reason from a priori claims, not to them. I fail to see how that differs materially from faith, except in name.

Where do you stand on the cannibalism taboo, for example?

[macrosan]

Where do you stand on the cannibalism taboo, for example?

As far away as possible from the pot.

Edited January 2, 2003 by macrosan (log)

[Wilfrid]

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.

[g.johnson]

Yes, Prof, but natural selection from what, and who created the process of natural selection ?

I may have misunderstood your argument. I thought you were suggesting that the existance of inherent religiosity was an argument for the existance of God, which I don't believe it is.

I'm simply suggesting that the something that science knows nothing about might well be what non-scientific believers call "God"....At the very least, a scientist should acknowledge the probability, even if not the certainty, that there are some thoroughly fundamental issues behind and around our existence which we cannot even begin to explain with our current knowledge.

Sure. Aside from a few anti-religious polemicists (Dawkins for example*) I don't think many scientists would find anything wrong with this. Science can tell you how the world works but not why it works that way and not some other way.

*Who lays it on a bit thick to get up the noses of creationists, I suspect.

[Priscilla]

Every time I read this topic title I think it oughta be Dietary Religious Laws. Dunno, probably just me.

[Fat Guy]

Steven you don't know what a priori claims are.  2+2=4 is an a priori claim.

That's a mathematical example. We're talking about ethics. Try again.

[g.johnson]

The concepts of God, and religion, and faith, are simply ways to attemopt to acknowledge our ignorance, and are surely as valid as mid-20th Century scientists' faith in the concepts of black holes and quasars and the Theory of Relativity.

Ooh, I missed this bit. I rather disagree here. I’m not going to claim that belief in God is 'invalid' but it’s totally different from belief in the existence of black holes. Belief in God is based on intuition, revelation, the word of authority, etc. Scientific beliefs are based on evidence and the ability to accurately predict the outcome of experiments.

[Wilfrid]

That's a mathematical example. We're talking about ethics. Try again.

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...?

[Max]

Nickn: Yes. Wars now seem to fought more on the basis of hegemony and access to resources. At the top of the list of the latter, at this time, are oil and water.

All wars, at the root, are fought over resources. Access to fertile land and water, then stored food was the locus of wars early in man's history. Slave labor became an objective of warriors. The wars between the tribes of Native Americans were about resources. Over time, control of natural resources replaced food, and control of cheap labor replaced slave labor as objectives of war. Organized religion, allied with the ruling class, was the handmaiden of the war makers. Name a major war and dig deep and you will uncover an economic base of the conflict. More death and destruction has been justified in the name of one god or another but really fought to control some resource.

[Steve Plotnicki]

To both Macrosan & Cakewalk - If you believe that god does exist, please show us some physical evidence. And if you can't, and you can only point to circumstantial evidence, please show me another example of something you are willing to believe in without seeing any physical evidence. And if you have no physical evidence, but have faith that there is a god, please explain to me how fashioning your behavior in terms of your diet based on "god's words" is different then being a suicide bomber because of "god's words?"

Wilfrid - Are you trying to say the following? Because religion is based in theology that often has no root in logic, then conflicts between existing religions cannot be reconciled peacefully. But disputes between secular beliefs can because one belief can prevail over the other as a matter of logic. If that is the case, I agree with you. And it is also the reason that the notion of seperation of church and state came about. Giving religion absolute power when their assertions could only be reconciled in a violent manner was impetus for man to uproot religion and to push it into a role that is inferior to the civil rights of the population at large.

[macrosan]

I thought you were suggesting that the existance of inherent religiosity was an argument for the existance of God, which I don't believe it is.

Heaven (or some humanist equivalent thereof) forbid. No, my argument for the existence of God is entirely based on rational deduction.

I agree about Dawkins. I have read several letters from the guy in The Independent, as well as seeing some TV interviews. I think he sees himself as having been placed on earth simply to demonstrate his own superiority over other mortals.

My point about black holes etc was that even scientists required a leap of faith to put forward their theories, since at the time of their postulation they could not be proven. In fact, at those times, they couldn't even predict a situation in which they could ever be proven. I would disagree that there is any important difference between the process of creation of a religious belief and the creation of a scientific hypothesis. Moses said "I have seen the Lord" and Archimedes said "Eureka" (well maybe he didn't, but it makes a good story).

[Max]

No worry about religious dietary laws down south...

Dixon estimates he'll sell about 500 pounds of (pork) jowl by New Year's Day. He said it's typically cooked in a pot of black-eyed peas as seasoning for the legumes, but that some people will eat it.

"What we've learned is that what people eat on New Year's Day is highly influenced by where they grew up," Dosier said.

Despite the differences, which Dosier attributes to factors such as region, ancestry, ethnicity and economic status, Southern states share some common themes.  "Pork seems to be high on the list because of the role it plays in Southern food in general," Dosier said.  

[Max]

To both Macrosan & Cakewalk - If you believe that god does exist, please show us some physical evidence

"If god does not exist, I paid too much for my carpeting."__Woody Allen

[Lord Michael Lewis]

I would disagree that there is any important difference between the process of creation of a religious belief and the creation of a scientific hypothesis. Moses said "I have seen the Lord" and Archimedes said "Eureka" (well maybe he didn't, but it makes a good story).

If this is genuinely the case, and not your trademark backpedalling, then you must be profoundly religious.