Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sfmag.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!mhuxm!sftig!sftri!sfmag!samet From: samet@sfmag.UUCP (A.I.Samet) Newsgroups: net.religion.jewish Subject: Premises,Premises,Premises,... Message-ID: <597@sfmag.UUCP> Date: Tue, 4-Jun-85 14:49:10 EDT Article-I.D.: sfmag.597 Posted: Tue Jun 4 14:49:10 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 6-Jun-85 04:20:09 EDT References: <593@sfmag.UUCP> <1048@pyuxd.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Information Systems, Summit, NJ Lines: 73 The comments below are taken from a single article in which R. Rosen was responding to an article of mine. > This argument assumes the existence of an endower, which is an > unproven (and a wishful thinking) assumption... > > If you choose to take the same assumptions that Mr. Samet does as your axioms... > > But why take the presumptive third view, with its wishful thinking presumptions > behind it, when you have the first view which has its roots in a clear > rational basis? The second and third views only work as justifications if > your accept the premises about "endowers"... > > See above. Mr. Samet's views would require that you make his types of > presumptions about the existence of god and, moreover, that your assumptions > be exactly the same as his... > > > What about the rights of those who don't hold your presumptions about god?... > > If and only if you could prove your presumptions about the nature of the law... > > It's dogmatic and arbitrary in that your basis for accepting it as fact is > no sounding than that of any other religious believer... These comments, and numerous others in previous debates, express (obsessively) two points: 1) My views entail certain assumptions/premises. 2) My assumptions are claimed to arbitrary ( = unproven, undemonstrable, wishful etc.) If I denied that my opinions are from a Torah viewpoint, these repeated comments might be understandable. However, the point of my article was to show that a viewpoint based on religious premises leads to different conclusions concerning rights, and I did so by distinguishing between and contrasting religious based arguments and non religious-based arguments. Since one position was openly represented as religious-based, it is inappropriate to object that it is religious-based. That is the very subject. In general, to ask why I believe that the Torah is G*d given and true is an important and legitimate question. I and others have discussed this on the net as a standalone topic. It is a long complex subject. It is worthwhile to explore it with anyone who is sincerely interested. It is a waste of time to discuss it with someone whose seeks antagonism rather than discourse. However, to raise this issue as a heckling/taunting tactic in order to stifle any expression of religious-based views is wrong. I cannot be expected to apologize for holding religious views by justifying the Torah's foundation every time I want to say "the Torah says such and such". First of all, I clearly indicate when my opinions are based on religious premises. Secondly, this is net.religion.jewish, and it is a place to express Jewish religious views, even Torah ones! If someone wishes to rant incessantly against every opinion which entails religious assumptions, net.flame or net.atheism might be a better place. I am ready and willing to discuss why the Torah is internally self-consistent on any issue or why I think a non-Torah viewpoint is internally inconsistent. I would like very much to continue to address the issue of foundations, but frankly, it would take pages and pages of discussion. For this reason, I try to touch on points piecemeal, when questions or issues are raised. If, unlike the religiously atheistic, you can entertain the possiblility that legitimate logical basis exists for believing in the Torah, I can suggest some books on the subject of Torah foundations. Yitzchok Samet