Religious Dietary Laws

[Steve Plotnicki]

No, my argument for the existence of God is entirely based on rational deduction.

Macrosan - So that is settled. The best evidence you have of god is circumstantial. So that brings us to question number 2. What other things govern your life based on circumstantial evidence?

[Wilfrid]

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.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

There are socio-cultural taboos on food other than the literally religious. Eating horsemeat is revolting to most Britons. It doesn't come down to any 'belief', rather a powerful and pragmatic suspicion of the unfamiliar.

Regarding Semitic eating habits, I remember reading that a lot of what is forbidden is not prohibited on health grounds, but on an ancient system of taxonomy of the animal kingdom. For the same reasons Jews are supposed to avoid Pork they are also forbidden camel-meat. This has something to do with hooves I think.

[Stone]

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?"

Just to jump in briefly -- Steve, the great gimmick of religion is that they've convinced people that the noblest virtue of believing in God is that you have absolutely no rational basis for believing in God. They call it "faith". And the less reason you've got for believing, the more you should believe, because "faith" is what God loves.

Jumping out.

[g.johnson]

Quine... thought belief in the ancient gods of Greece was not different in kind from belief in the laws of physics

Well Quine can fly in airplanes designed on pagan principles and I'll stick to those based on Newtonian mechanics.

[Steve Plotnicki]

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

Wilfrid - But this takes us full circle. Because the way they co-exist yet stay unreconciled is that neither pushes the envelope to the extremes. And the way they keep from doing that is not to take the original writings of their bibles literally. It becomes a matter of interpertation. In the case of Jews, their inability to keep pace with the rest of society in a predominantly Christian and modern world caused them to invent both reformed and conservative Judaism. But at the same time that a reformation was taking place, extreme forms of orthodoxy in the manner of Hassidic cults tightened the noose around their congregations.

[macrosan]

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.

If I understood your premise or your parenthetical reference or your conclusion, I would reply

[Gavin Jones]

Jings, Crivens and help ma' Bob, I'm even sympathising with Jason now.

Felipe Fernandez-Arnesto states; 'It is pointless to seek rational and material explanations for dietary restrictions, because they are essentially supra-rational and Metaphysical'.

He instances Fiji where taboos are imposed specifically to pregnant women (crab, octopus, coconut liquid).

And in the late 12thC Giraldus Cambrensis permitted barnacle Geese as Lenten food as they reproduced without sex. It is this linkage (between diet and chastity) that he uses to draw the analogy with modern dietetics - which he therefore also locates as 'supra-rational'.

As to revealed dietary laws - I presume for the religions where this is the case (Christianity not one, but I'm understanding Judaism and Islam as so) there are no quibbles about the exact interpretation of "God"'s word.

[Tonyfinch]

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".

Macrosan. I can understand and relate to that idea of God and I don't dismiss it out of hand.

However that was patently NOT the concept of God that I and I suspect everyone else here was brought up on. As a Jew I was brought up on the angry, tyrannical, vengeful God of the Old Testament. This chappie was deeply insecure. He was always demanding tests of people, shouting and railing at them, trapping them then blaming them for falling into the trap (Adam&Eve), demanding they kill their children ("only testing, Isaac old boy") making them wander around for years on end and generally threatening dire consequences to all who question or disobey.

God is presented through organized religion as a human being. Well is he a human being or is he God? Because he can't be both. As a God he should not demand, order, threaten, punish, forgive etc. Because those are all things that human beings do and it is therefore clear that the God of organized religion as we know him is anthropomorphised in order to control and manipulate societies and cultures.

The God in your quote may exist. But he's not the one who issued the dietry laws. THAT one is us

Edited January 2, 2003 by Tonyfinch (log)

[macrosan]

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 ...

Now now, Wilfy, that's not what I said, tsk tsk. What I said was that the process of creation of a scientific hypothesis was not importantly (in relation to the discussion between me and the Prof) different from the process of creation of a religious belief. Both require original conceptualisation and conversion into expressible and credible form.

The end results could not sensibly bear any resemblance (pace your Mr Quine) and more than a scientific hypothesis resembles the Mona Lisa.

[Wilfrid]

Well Quine can fly in airplanes designed on pagan principles and I'll stick to those based on Newtonian mechanics.

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...

[jaybee]

Regarding Semitic eating habits, I remember reading that a lot of what is forbidden is not prohibited on health grounds, but on an ancient system of taxonomy of the animal kingdom. For the same reasons Jews are supposed to avoid Pork they are also forbidden camel-meat. This has something to do with hooves I think.

I believe catfish are verboten too. There's no prohiition of eating gill-netted dolphins. But there is against swordfish. It's all very rational, you see.

Camel meat is a no no because they were the primary means of transportation. Now there are automobiles, they should be put back on the eat list.

[lxt]

I have just read 187 posts on this thread, and what astonishes me is that not a single person has proposed the obvious reason for dietary laws, which is quite simply that they are God's laws. Now I accept that if a person doesn't believe in God, then he/she won't accept His laws.

Any reference to “law” assumes rules and regulations that effect our decision-making and consequently our morality. Simply accepting God’s laws with the comfort of no inquiry is a legalistic approach where principles, codified in rules, are not merely guidelines or maxims to illuminate the situation; they are directives to be followed. In fact, Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism -- all major Western religious traditions have been legalistic. The ancient Jews, living by the law, or Torah, and its oral tradition (halakah) had a code of 613 (or 621) precepts, amplified by an increasingly complicated mass of Mishnaic interpretations and applications.

Since statutory and code law inevitably pile up, ruling upon ruling, because of the complications of life, they result in accumulating an elaborate system of exceptions and compromises in the form or rules for breaking rules. The complications of taking God’s laws, interpreting them to satisfy the situational conditions of contemporary life, and moreover following these laws resulted in the fact that Reform and even Conservative Jews have been driven to disentangle themselves from it.

I am not even touching extremes in following God’s laws which resulted in burning at the stake in the Middle Ages, because following your rationale, belief in God’s laws requires the legalist, even though he may be truly sorry, to still cry, “Fiat justitia, ruat caelum!” (Do the “right” even if the sky falls). Or the sacrifice of children, as it was practiced in Canaan and in Carthage down to its destruction by the Romans in the third century BC. Quite obviously we deal here with a religious motivation that is stronger than even the love for the child. The man in such a culture is completely devoted to his religious system, or in other words proclaims that “they are God’s laws”, and he is not cruel, even though he appears so to a person outside this system. Or as Cardinal Newman said, “The Church holds that it were better for the sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions who are upon it to die of starvation in extremist agony… than that one soul, I will not say should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin.”

Therefore the problem with eating pork, for instance, is nothing more and nothing less than hanging on to certain eternally invariable rules of conduct as absolutely valid and universally obliging regardless of the situation, believing that there are some things, allegedly learned directly from God, that are always right or always wrong. And if you refuse to give intrinsic validity to moral principles, you are assumed to have none, instead of considering the premise that “circumstances alter rules and principles.” It is said that when Gertrude Stein lay dying she declared, “It is better to ask questions than to give answers, even good answers.” It is not only about breaking God’s laws. It is about adjusting or interpreting them according to a changing environment. It is about the practical temper of the active, verb-minded decision maker, versus contemplative noun-mindedness.

[Fat Guy]

I doubt whether there are any interesting a priori truths in ethics

Perhaps I have my terminology confused, but I distinctly remember this guy named Kant saying that things like causation are a priori (synthetic a priori?) and just sort of have to be accepted as the prerequisites for the rest of the discussion. I also am under the impression that the term "a priori" is used in literate adult discourse to mean, "it just is that way," as in, "murder is a priori wrong and we all have to agree on that before we can discuss ethics in any meaningful way."

[Lord Michael Lewis]

I doubt whether there are any interesting a priori truths in ethics

Perhaps I have my terminology confused, but I distinctly remember this guy named Kant saying that things like causation are a priori (synthetic a priori?) and just sort of have to be accepted as the prerequisites for the rest of the discussion. I also am under the impression that the term "a priori" is used in literate adult discourse to mean, "it just is that way," as in, "murder is a priori wrong and we all have to agree on that before we can discuss ethics in any meaningful way."

This is woefully off-topic. Can someone call a moderator?

[Gavin Jones]

I think that was Wilfrid's 2+2=4 example - and philosophers have spent a lot of time concocting situations where obvious synthetic a priori ethics goes for a burton.

Enjoyed lxt's post. One immediately comes up with the question for Macrosan

'If there's only pork sausages to eat should you starve to death or break God's laws?'.

[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.

If I understood your premise or your parenthetical reference or your conclusion, I would reply

It's just that whenever someone bangs on about their faith, that's usually the moment to mentally file them under 'strange' and subsequently make sure they don't corner you on social occasions.

[jaybee]

He was always demanding tests of people, shouting and railing at them, trapping them then blaming them for falling into the trap (Adam&Eve), demanding they kill their children ("only testing, Isaac old boy") making them wander around for years on end and generally threatening dire consequences to all who question or disobey.

Damn right. There was all that slewing and smoting, blinding and stuff. Didn't Abe kill his brother because he didn't pony up a good enough gift to Him?

Some of the lyrics to The Messiah are about smashing non-believers with rods of steel, breaking them like potters vessles. That's very inspirational, i'nit?

I'm for pork, camel burgers, catfish pie and apple pan dowdy and enough of this hypocritcal baloney from whatever pulpits you like.

[Fat Guy]

'If there's only pork sausages to eat should you starve to death or break God's laws?'.

I know of no religious authority who advocates death over breaking the laws of kashruth. I believe this is discussed, at least in Judaism, as the concepts of pikuach nefesh and tzorchei tzibbur, meaning the saving of a life and the needs of the community (roughly). That is to say, it is acceptable to break certain laws when presented with overwhelming need.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Gavin - Jewish law makes exception for sickness and health. So you could eat a bacon lettuce and tomato sandwich rather then starve to death because god values life more then he values the rules. But change the situation from life and death to one that is optional they will throw you out of the religion for it.

[jaybee]

Enjoyed lxt's post. One immediately comes up with the question for Macrosan  'If there's only pork sausages to eat should you starve to death or break God's laws?'.

Ditto LXT. I'm glad you've weighed in here.

Regarding sausages or starvation, did you read the earlier link about food distribution in Florida during a hurricane and the refusal of kosher folk to eat what was available?

[ivan]

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.

If I understood your premise or your parenthetical reference or your conclusion, I would reply

It's just that whenever someone bangs on about their faith, that's usually the moment to mentally file them under 'strange' and subsequently make sure they don't corner you on social occasions.

Avatars are often good indicators, as well.

[Lord Michael Lewis]

Gavin - Jewish law makes exception for sickness and health. So you could eat a bacon lettuce and tomato sandwich rather then starve to death because god values life more then he values the rules. But change the situation from life and death to one that is optional they will throw you out of the religion for it.

So could a Jew justify eating bacon by citing a dangerous depression caused by the denial of pork products?

Edited January 2, 2003 by Lord Michael Lewis (log)

[macrosan]

I can understand and relate to that idea of God and I don't dismiss it out of hand.

However that was patently NOT the concept of God that I and I suspect everyone else here was brought up on. As a Jew I was brought up on the angry, tyrannical, vengeful God of the Old Testament. This chappie was deeply insecure. He was always demanding tests of people, shouting and railing at them, trapping them then blaming them for falling into the trap (Adam&Eve), demanding they kill their children ("only testing, Isaac old boy") making them wander around for years on end and generally threatening dire consequences to all who question or disobey.

That's sad, Tony, because that's a different God from the one I was brought up on. The God I was introduced to as a child was just like my father --- he was a God who loved his creations, wanted the best for them, saved them from awful events, taught them and gave them opportunities for life. Of course he was also able and ready to exercise discipline, but even when he was doing that he cried to himself. Also, like my father, he made mistakes and was (sometimes) willing to admit that. You would have to be awfully selective in your reading to have produced your view, I think.

God is presented through organized religion as a human being.

Well not in the Jewish religion.

As a God he should not demand, order, threaten, punish, forgive etc. Because those are all things that human beings do

No, not according to the Jewish religion, they're not.

But all of the above is just the religion that you and I were taught, that we grew up with and either did or did not accept before we reached an age of philosophical reason. When I acquired the ability to reason for myself, I re-examined my view of and my belief in God, and I actually rejected some of what I was taught, and learned new ideas for myself. So for example, I rejected the notion that kashrut was an all-or-nothing option, and adopted my own idiosyncratic version. I rejected much of the detail of Moses'/God's dealing with Pharaoh in Egypt, because they did not reconcile with my developed view of what God was, and what He might or might not have done. And there are a number of detailed aspects of observance and interpretation and custom that I find unacceptable to my learned values, and which I therefore discard or modify. To some Jews, that would make me a heretic, or a hypocrite, but I can live with that label.

What I didn't do was to pick on a few specific aspects of my religion and culture which I found to be unpleasing, and conclude that the whole package needed to be thrown out.

[Wilfrid]

I'm not sure I have the strength for Kant.

He thought some a priori truths were analytically true, i.e. tautologies, while some a priori truths were synthetically true, i.e. not dependent on experience but not tautologous either. He also believed that the possibility of rational judgment implied the validity of certain basic concepts like space, time, identity, free will, and - indeed - causation. And, yes, I think he would have regarded the existence of cause and effect as a synthetic a priori truth. Kant's account of the a priori is far from uncontroversial. He also recognized, less controversially, the existence of a posteriori truths, or "empirical" truths as we are more likely to refer to them now; statements which are true, not because of the meaning of their terms, but because the world is the way it is - e.g "some swans are white".

Does the possibility of rational discourse depend on an acceptance of certain principles which (arguably) are not derived from experience? Yes, I'm sure it does. It would be very hard to have a discussion about economics with someone who didn't accept the propositions of mathematics. But for your objection, Steven, to get any traction, you need to argue that things like logic, mathematics - or even, pace Kant, fundamental concepts like causation - have the same epistemological status as religious claims like "God prohibits pork-eating" or "the bread and wine of Holy Communion are the flesh and blood of Christ."

That's a tall order.