Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Belief vs. Conviction: A Primer

182 views
Skip to first unread message

Lisa

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 12:26:25 AM8/11/02
to
A certain escapee from my killfile (don't worry; that won't happen
again) wrote:

>Lisa does not claim to believe in
>the truth of Torah. She declares the truth of the Torah as being something
>outside the realm of belief, as something that isn't "believed,"

And added:

>And further, she declares not just that "Torah" is truth, but
>that the set of traditions that she declares as being the Torah to be
>truth, and that this declaration too is outside the realm of belief, but
>is objective fact.

It's amazing to me that this person has once again twisted what I
wrote and attributed to me the exact opposite of what I wrote. But of
course, that's what earned him entrance to my killfile before.
Sometimes I'm a slow learner.

So for anyone else who may be reading this, since I've given up trying
to get this person to read what I actually write, here's the
difference between belief and conviction.

Belief is inherently a-rational. I won't say "irrational", because
you can believe something that turns out to be rational, but belief
itself is 100% detached from any rational process. It lives in the
guts; not in the brain. A person can believe in elves or fairies
without ever having seen any evidence for or against the proposition
that elves and fairies exist, because belief doesn't care about
evidence.

I remember a man I met once when I was in college. It was a Hillel
House activity, and this was some older guy from the community. And
we got to talking. And during the course of this, he explained that
since the Torah says we're supposed to be a Holy People, that means we
need to be unified. Why? Because, he explained, he believed that
there must be some connection between the words "holy" and "whole". I
explained to him that there wasn't, and that in fact, we weren't told
to be "holy", but rather "kadosh", which has a connotation of
separateness and uniqueness, rather than wholeness. He got a stubborn
look on his face and said that he believed otherwise, and that was
that. Nice.

The early Christian theologian Tertullian (bear with me, O Mods), when
asked how he could believe the absurdities of his religion, answered
"credo, quia absurdum". "I believe *because* it is absurd". And
there's hardly a better definition of belief than that.

Belief doesn't want to hear about information to the contrary. Belief
spits in the face of logic. Belief is just a matter of whim, and
nothing more.

Science tells us that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant,
and they can tell us to a very high level of accuracy what that speed
is. I don't "believe" this to be true. I do not "believe" that every
molecule of water is made up of one atom of oxygen and two of
hydrogen. I accept those facts not because my emotions require me to
and not out of some intrinsic or Platonic "knowledge" (which is no
knowledge at all), but because the information comes to me from
sources which I consider, based on the learning I have done and based
on the areas where I *have* checked for myself, to be trustworthy.

The same is true of anyone who accepts a piece of knowledge that they
haven't personally seen for themselves. If they accept that
information as valid, it's either because they've seen evidence which
convinces them of its validity, whether direct or indirect, or because
they want to. The latter is belief. The former is conviction.

Conviction, by its nature, requires an act of convincing. That's
simply what the word means. A conviction can be wrong, just as a
belief can be right. But the fact that they can each be right or
wrong doesn't make them the same thing. Not by a long shot.
Conviction requires an act of reason. It might be poor reasoning in
some cases, but the process is going on in the brain, and not in the
kishkes.

Torah is not about belief. If religions are based on belief, then
Judaism is not a religion. The Torah is about knowledge.
Information. The reason it was revealed in front of about 3 million
men, women and children was so that people wouldn't need to rely on
belief. Other religions have a man receiving a revelation in a cave
all by himself. Or have a dozen individuals witnessing a
resurrection. How convenient.

I can never quite grasp what people are thinking when they try and
imagine the Torah having been other than what it claims to be. I'm
picturing Moses in the desert trying to convince everyone that they'd
personally witnessed God giving the Torah at Sinai. Or Ezra trying to
convince an entire nation, most of whom were still in Babylon, that
they'd been passing the Torah down for a thousand years and just
didn't remember doing so. How stupid do some people think our people
were?

If you sit down and think about it, the vast majority of the
information in your lives is information that you did not acquire
first hand. You're told that the earth is 15 billion years old, but I
assume you haven't been around that long to verify that claim. You're
told that the sun is a big fusion reactor in the sky, but you almost
certainly have not seen any of the evidence for that.

It can be rational to be convinced of something even without having
witnessed it personally, but only if you approach it rationally. If
you slam your eyes and ears shut to any evidence that goes against
your cherished beliefs, you've left the realm of reason.

Are there Orthodox Jews who operate on the level of "belief"? Sadly,
yes. But Judaism itself doesn't care a whit for belief. And to
respond to another chacham on this newsgroup who felt himself capable
of giving me a lesson in Hebrew, the word "emunah" *is* the same root
as the word "emet", or truth. Nun-tav dipthongs often blend in Hebrew
to leave only a tav. The words "at" and "ata" (you, in masculine and
feminine) are a classic example. In Arabic and Aramaic, they are
still "ant" and "anta". The dagesh (dot) in the tav in "ata" is a
remnant of the nun that dropped out.

"Emet" is the noun form of the verb alef-men-nun. Amin means
trustworthy, and also true, as in "a good man and true". When we say
"amen", we are affirming the truth of what was just said. The person
who decided to instruct me in Hebrew is much like the guy who wanted
to tell me that we're supposed to be a "whole" nation. Simple
translations for simple use lose the nuances of the words in the
original language. It's one of the nice things about Everett Fox's
translation of the Torah. For all its faults, it preserves nuances
that are lost in dictionary-style translations.

Judaism is about living according to the Torah that God gave us, and
passing it down intact to the next generation. And operating on it
with the system that was given as part of it. The people who were
there at Sinai (in body) didn't need either belief *or* conviction.
They saw it with their own eyes and heard it with their own ears. And
vice versa to a certain extent. Their children all heard about it
from their parents, and only a nut would have denied it at that point,
because they all heard the same thing, and their parents were all
alive. Sure, it becomes more removed with time, but that's the reason
that it was given to so many people at once, and that's why the
accurate transmission of the Torah is such a vital issue in Judaism.

Those people who want to just close down their minds and say, "I don't
want to be bothered, so I'm going to disbelieve", *they* are the ones
who are operating on belief. They have an emotional reason to push
the Torah away, and reason doesn't faze them. Although that's not
true of all of them. Jews do come back to the Torah, and Jews always
will. And Orthodox Jews are not going to apologize for placing our
knowledge of Torah above the cavalier and emotional rejection of what
the Torah says by those who think with their kishkes.

As far as the individual who started this nonsense by inverting what I
said and presenting his invention as what I said, I hope that even
those of you who disagree with me will know better than to *ever*
listen to anything he says when it involves presenting the views of
someone else.

Lisa

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 7:07:17 AM8/11/02
to

"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
news:3d55de8...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...

>
> Torah is not about belief. If religions are based on belief, then
> Judaism is not a religion. The Torah is about knowledge.
> Information. The reason it was revealed in front of about 3 million
> men, women and children was so that people wouldn't need to rely on
> belief. Other religions have a man receiving a revelation in a cave
> all by himself. Or have a dozen individuals witnessing a
> resurrection. How convenient.

Stop right there. What *evidence* is there for this? You don't "know"
this. You "believe" it. It is not objective, verifiable fact, it is
belief.

I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying, "Where's the proof?"

And answering, "The Torah says so" is simply circular reasoning since it is
the objective truth of the Torah (as opposed to belief that it is true) that
is being questioned in the first place.

Talqcom

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 7:44:33 AM8/11/02
to
>Subject: Belief vs. Conviction: A Primer
>From: li...@starways.net (Lisa)
>Date: 8/11/2002 12:26 AM Eastern Standard Time

>And to
>respond to another chacham on this newsgroup who felt himself capable
>of giving me a lesson in Hebrew, the word "emunah" *is* the same root
>as the word "emet", or truth.

I am glad you mentioned this. I checked the two authors of sifre shorashim.
Qimhi and Ibn Janah. Both classify "emeth" as derivaing from shoresh 'MN, as
you say. Is anyone here positing a shoresh 'MT?

>Nun-tav dipthongs often blend in Hebrew
>to leave only a tav. The words "at" and "ata" (you, in masculine and
>feminine) are a classic example. In Arabic and Aramaic, they are
>still "ant" and "anta". The dagesh (dot) in the tav in "ata" is a
>remnant of the nun that dropped out.

Which is why the word emeth, with object suffixes, *has* this daghesh: emeth
--> 'amitto, etc.

>The people who were
>there at Sinai (in body) didn't need either belief *or* conviction.
>They saw it with their own eyes and heard it with their own ears.

"Attem (there's our nun again) re'ithem ki min hashshamayim dibbarti
'immakhem."

>Sure, it becomes more removed with time, but that's the reason
>that it was given to so many people at once, and that's why the
>accurate transmission of the Torah is such a vital issue in Judaism.

Thus the intimate connection between the Book and the People of the Book.

However I, under the influence of Maimonides, believe that there is something
further. He describes an innate sense of revelation which evey's genuine Jew
has. He obliquely refers to this in the Mishne Tora by saying whomever doubts
this fact (the revelation, etc.) it is an indication that his ancestors never
stood at Sinai. In the Guide he describes what is termed an intuitively known
thing ("'elem il-daruri"). Analogous to the way a flower "knows" to bend to
the sun (thereby changing the angle between the plane of its bud and its stem
throughout the day), certain things are not needed to be reasoned about to be
known. In our terms such knowledge is a cross between instinct and consious
understanding.

Certain such things can be a part of the human psyche and passed
phlogenetically. Jung dicusses similar ideas in other contexts as
"archetypes."

What bothers me about the "proofs" regarding the falseness of and the
"contradictions" found in the Tora, is that everyone forgets that they are
measuring one work against the assumptions of a certain culture, which are
obviously at variance with the assumptions of the Tora.

Herman finds "contradictions of fact" in the Tora, but can only do this via
assuming the Tora is literal as a computer program. Once Hebrew metaphor is
taken into account (and Jewish national memory treated at least as equally
probative of the subject as some master of 19th century Wellhausen Biblical
Criticism), the verses are found to be often polysemic, and need to be decoded.

Ulitmately Jews either take as true their surrounding cultural apparatus and
measure the Tora against it, or take the Tora as true (via such intuitive
collective memory) and measure their surrounding culture against it, thus
requiring a kind of biculturalism ewhich Jews were known for, and which often
allowed them to see the limits of their surrounding culture and try to push
those limits. Sigmund Freud is one of lliterally millions of such examples.

Ray

Talqcom

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 7:50:47 AM8/11/02
to
>Subject: Re: Belief vs. Conviction: A Primer
>From: "Dan Kimmel" dan.k...@worldnet.att.net
>Date: 8/11/2002 7:07 AM Eastern Standard Time

>Stop right there. What *evidence* is there for this?

As a repeatable experiment, none. But the Tora is not a high school science
project, and we are under no duty to prove anything to you.

> You don't "know"
>this. You "believe" it. It is not objective, verifiable fact, it is
>belief.

You have an absolute two valued orientation. This of course was evident to me
in the all/nothing at all manner you see the school voucher issue.

To you there may be only crap or gold. Absolute immediate and visual
knowledge, or "belief."

Obviously to me and to the classical Jews, there is something in between.

>I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying, "Where's the proof?"

Jewish collective memory. At some point one can be so assimilated they can no
longer access this. At this point it appears there is zero, and proof is
required.

>And answering, "The Torah says so" is simply circular reasoning since it is
>the objective truth of the Torah (as opposed to belief that it is true) that
>is being questioned in the first place.

Or it is an expression of self evidence, which one either has to perceive or
they do not. Ten sighted man cannot prove that they can see to a blind world.
"Prove that there is blue" "Prove that this is blue" they will say. You
cannot prove that something is blue.

I see the request for reasoned proof as the effect of assimilation.

Ray

James Kahn

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 9:03:43 AM8/11/02
to

>"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
>news:3d55de8...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
>>
>> Torah is not about belief. If religions are based on belief, then
>> Judaism is not a religion. The Torah is about knowledge.
>> Information. The reason it was revealed in front of about 3 million
>> men, women and children was so that people wouldn't need to rely on
>> belief. Other religions have a man receiving a revelation in a cave
>> all by himself. Or have a dozen individuals witnessing a
>> resurrection. How convenient.

>Stop right there. What *evidence* is there for this? You don't "know"
>this. You "believe" it. It is not objective, verifiable fact, it is
>belief.

>I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying, "Where's the proof?"

How do you "prove" anything? How do you know that the men really
walked on the moon? There are people who believe the whole thing
was staged. How do you know the holocaust really happened? Now
consider how one could "prove" that something happened 3,000 years
ago? At some point a demand for "proof" is just a rhetorical device
equivalent to "I don't want to think about this any further."
.
--
Jim
New York, NY
(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
http://www.panix.com/~kahn

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 9:50:41 AM8/11/02
to

"James Kahn" <ka...@nospam.panix.com> wrote in message
news:aj5ndn$s74$1...@reader2.panix.com...

Now that's a truly bizarre response. In fact, it's equivalent to I *do*
want to think about it and object to attempts to foreclose thought by
saying, "It's true. We know it. End of discussion."

And your examples fail because of scientific, documentary, and eyewitness
evidence proving that both events happened.

Now how do you prove what happened at Sinai? The answer is obvious: you
can't. Therefore we accept the Torah on faith and belief, not because we
"know" it is demonstrably true.

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 9:50:47 AM8/11/02
to

"Talqcom" <tal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020811075058...@mb-mn.aol.com...

> >Subject: Re: Belief vs. Conviction: A Primer
> >From: "Dan Kimmel" dan.k...@worldnet.att.net
> >Date: 8/11/2002 7:07 AM Eastern Standard Time
>
> >Stop right there. What *evidence* is there for this?
>
> As a repeatable experiment, none. But the Tora is not a high school
science
> project, and we are under no duty to prove anything to you.

You've leapt to the wrong conclusion. The Gettysburgh Address isn't a
"repeatable experiment" either, yet no one questions the historicity of its
deliverance.

> > You don't "know"
> >this. You "believe" it. It is not objective, verifiable fact, it is
> >belief.
>
> You have an absolute two valued orientation. This of course was evident
to me
> in the all/nothing at all manner you see the school voucher issue.
>
> To you there may be only crap or gold. Absolute immediate and visual
> knowledge, or "belief."
>
> Obviously to me and to the classical Jews, there is something in between.

And you're playing word games. If you claim it is not belief but truth, but
can only offer your belief as proof, you're making my case for me.

> >I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying, "Where's the proof?"
>
> Jewish collective memory. At some point one can be so assimilated they
can no
> longer access this. At this point it appears there is zero, and proof is
> required.

"Collective memory" is not proof. Centuries ago everyone "knew" the world
was flat. And that the Earth was the center of the universe. Half a
century ago Christians "knew" that the Jews killed their deity. One need
only read the Tanakh to know that your "collective memory" failed even in
ancient times among the Israelites.

> >And answering, "The Torah says so" is simply circular reasoning since it
is
> >the objective truth of the Torah (as opposed to belief that it is true)
that
> >is being questioned in the first place.
>
> Or it is an expression of self evidence, which one either has to perceive
or
> they do not. Ten sighted man cannot prove that they can see to a blind
world.
> "Prove that there is blue" "Prove that this is blue" they will say. You
> cannot prove that something is blue.
>
> I see the request for reasoned proof as the effect of assimilation.

I see the failure to even understand the discussion as the effect of closing
one's mind, certain that one's beliefs must be true.

If you are arguing that something is "self-evident," when clearly it is not,
you are relying on what you believe to be true.

As for your flawed analogy, one can do a spectrographic analysis so that
even if one can not "see" blue, one can measure that it reflects light in
that range of the spectrum.

John Likakis

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 9:55:07 AM8/11/02
to
In article <aj5ndn$s74$1...@reader2.panix.com>, ka...@nospam.panix.com (James
Kahn) wrote:

> In <KAr59.7848$Ep6.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> "Dan Kimmel"
> <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
> >news:3d55de8...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
> >>
> >> Torah is not about belief. If religions are based on belief, then
> >> Judaism is not a religion. The Torah is about knowledge.
> >> Information. The reason it was revealed in front of about 3 million
> >> men, women and children was so that people wouldn't need to rely on
> >> belief. Other religions have a man receiving a revelation in a cave
> >> all by himself. Or have a dozen individuals witnessing a
> >> resurrection. How convenient.
>

> >Stop right there. What *evidence* is there for this? You don't "know"


> >this. You "believe" it. It is not objective, verifiable fact, it is
> >belief.
>

> >I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying, "Where's the proof?"
>

> How do you "prove" anything?

Jim, you and Talqcom are drifting in the wrong direction here. This isn't
about trying to prove or disprove the validity of Torah--it's about the
distinction between believing and knowing.

In that vein, Dan is absolutely correct. Looked at from a completely
disconnected and dispassionate POV, Judaism is just like the rest of the
Western religions: They've got a book (actually, several books) and claim
those books to be the word of G-d. Just like the Xians, just like the
Muslims.

There is no concrete proof to support ANY of these claims. There are only
the books. The result is completely circular reasoning to support the
claims. It goes like this: [book] is the absolute and binding word of G-d. I
know this because [book] tells me it is the absolute and binding word of
G-d.

Thus, from a position of pure logic, the "proof" for Judaism is on exactly
the same level as the man receiving a revelation in a cave or a dozen
individuals witnessing a resurrection. As in, no proof at all. Hence, no
matter how strongly anyone feels about Torah, they're working from belief.
There's just no way around that. Yes, the printed pages exist, and that's
indisputable fact--but, in the absence of evidence, their origin is a matter
of belief.

John Likakis

Micha Berger

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 10:01:56 AM8/11/02
to
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 13:50:47 +0000 (UTC), Dan Kimmel <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: You've leapt to the wrong conclusion. The Gettysburgh Address isn't a

: "repeatable experiment" either, yet no one questions the historicity of its
: deliverance.

Give 'em three millenia, then talk.

There is also strong emotional reason to deny a religious claim that
doesn't hold for the Gettysburgh Address.

: I see the failure to even understand the discussion as the effect of closing


: one's mind, certain that one's beliefs must be true.

And I see the failure on the other side: as being one of not having the
audacity to be sure of things one can't prove to determined skeptics.

: As for your flawed analogy, one can do a spectrographic analysis so that


: even if one can not "see" blue, one can measure that it reflects light in
: that range of the spectrum.

Actually, not every blue object that appears identically to the view
reflects the same frequencies. Any combination of frequencies that causes
the red, green and blue cones in the viewer's retina, and provide the same
brightness reaction to the rod to fire identically will look the same.
Color is more biology than physics.

And color isn't only in an object's relationship to the viewer. It's
also in the lighting, the viewer's psychological state, etc...

But in any case, spectra are empirical. If you require that all of
your conclusions be based on empirical data, you've already denied
the truth of religion of any sort.

Monotheism isn't empirically provable, neither is atheism, nor
polytheism... But you can prove by tautology that of them must be True.

-mi

--
Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
mi...@aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

Eliyahu

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 10:44:51 AM8/11/02
to

"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:aj5qqc$1833s7$1...@ID-113975.news.dfncis.de...
OTOH, you can't prove _which_ of them is true. And Dan didn't say that his
conclusions about religion must be based on empirical data; only that we
can't make a blanket statement about the absolute and unassailable truth of
our beliefs by citing those beliefs as proof that they're true. "Proof by
repeated assertion" doesn't prove anything except that the claimant
fervently believes the statement. To put it most simply, we can't just claim
that the Torah is true just because the Torah says it's true. That's where
faith comes in.

Eliyahu

Sheldon Ackerman

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 10:48:35 AM8/11/02
to
<g_t59.7036$Ke2.6...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Dan Kimmel wrote:

>
>And your examples fail because of scientific, documentary, and eyewitness
>evidence proving that both events happened.
>
>Now how do you prove what happened at Sinai? The answer is obvious: you
>can't. Therefore we accept the Torah on faith and belief, not because we
>"know" it is demonstrably true.

A rav once suggested that one of his talmidim as the following question to
his philosphy teacher who's objective was to get everyone to question
everything. The question was something along the lines of proving who your
father is or was.

What would you say? Does one really know who is father is, or does one
BELIEVE he knows who is father is?

Sheldon Ackerman

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 10:52:05 AM8/11/02
to
In article <pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org>, John Likakis wrote:

>
>Jim, you and Talqcom are drifting in the wrong direction here. This isn't
>about trying to prove or disprove the validity of Torah--it's about the
>distinction between believing and knowing.
>
>In that vein, Dan is absolutely correct. Looked at from a completely
>disconnected and dispassionate POV, Judaism is just like the rest of the
>Western religions: They've got a book (actually, several books) and claim
>those books to be the word of G-d. Just like the Xians, just like the
>Muslims.

As I asked in another message , do you know who your father is or was, or do
you only believe that you know?

Fiona

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 10:59:54 AM8/11/02
to

Dan Kimmel wrote in message ...

>
>Now how do you prove what happened at Sinai? The answer is obvious: you
>can't.

The fact that you are here today, as a Jew, is proof that Sinai happened.
Prove me wrong.


Fiona

John Likakis

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 11:16:57 AM8/11/02
to
In article <slrnalcuig....@amanda.dorsai.org>,
acke...@amanda.dorsai.org (Sheldon Ackerman) wrote:

>SNIP<


>
> As I asked in another message , do you know who your father is or was, or do
> you only believe that you know?

Well, in my particular case, it's a scientifically verified fact.
Yep--real-live documentation from impartial observers. So that kind of moots
your point, I guess.

John Likakis

Micha Berger

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 11:18:29 AM8/11/02
to
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 14:44:51 +0000 (UTC), Eliyahu <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
:> Monotheism isn't empirically provable, neither is atheism, nor

:> polytheism... But you can prove by tautology that of them must be True.

: OTOH, you can't prove _which_ of them is true. And Dan didn't say that his
: conclusions about religion must be based on empirical data; only that we
: can't make a blanket statement about the absolute and unassailable truth of

: our beliefs by citing those beliefs as proof that they're true...

Actually, Dan went further than that. He wrote:
> You don't "know"
>this. You "believe" it. It is not objective, verifiable fact, it is
>belief.

My point was to distinguish "True" from "objective, verifiable".

You can prove that one of those three faith positions are objective
fact, even if none of them are objectively verifiable.

John Likakis

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 11:22:48 AM8/11/02
to
In article <1029078026.3276.0...@news.demon.co.uk>, "Fiona"
<fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Hmmmmm.....So, by extension, we can then assert that the fact that a Muslim
poster is here today is proof that Mohammed was G-d's messenger? Thus, by
your logic, Judaism has been succeeded not once but twice--first by Xianity,
then by Islam. Not what you want to hear, but precisely the point you're
proving.

John Likakis

Robert

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 11:59:33 AM8/11/02
to
Fiona wrote:
> The fact that you are here today, as a Jew, is proof that Sinai happened.
> Prove me wrong.

This statement is the height of irrationality. You might as well claim that
"the fact that you are here today is proof that the Hindu gods created you.
Prove me wrong." Its just totally illogical.

I suspect that her views are not representative of the denomiantions she
hews to. I certainly cannot find anything in classical Jewish works to
support her claims.

Robert

Shane

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 12:34:01 PM8/11/02
to
Robert wrote:

>Fiona wrote:
>> The fact that you are here today, as a Jew, is proof that Sinai happened.
>> Prove me wrong.
>
>This statement is the height of irrationality. You might as well claim that
>"the fact that you are here today is proof that the Hindu gods created you.
>Prove me wrong." Its just totally illogical.

It is, however, a good example of begging the question. See this entry in the
Skeptic's Dictionary: skepdic.com/begging.html

Shane

Joel Shurkin

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 12:50:05 PM8/11/02
to
In article <3d55de8...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>, Lisa
<li...@starways.net> wrote:

> A certain escapee from my killfile (don't worry; that won't happen
> again) wrote:
>
> >Lisa does not claim to believe in
> >the truth of Torah. She declares the truth of the Torah as being something
> >outside the realm of belief, as something that isn't "believed,"
>
> And added:
>
> >And further, she declares not just that "Torah" is truth, but
> >that the set of traditions that she declares as being the Torah to be
> >truth, and that this declaration too is outside the realm of belief, but
> >is objective fact.
>
> It's amazing to me that this person has once again twisted what I
> wrote and attributed to me the exact opposite of what I wrote. But of
> course, that's what earned him entrance to my killfile before.
> Sometimes I'm a slow learner.

He correctly reported what you wrote and if you find that painful,
don't be surprised.


>
> So for anyone else who may be reading this, since I've given up trying
> to get this person to read what I actually write, here's the
> difference between belief and conviction.
>
> Belief is inherently a-rational. I won't say "irrational", because
> you can believe something that turns out to be rational, but belief
> itself is 100% detached from any rational process. It lives in the
> guts; not in the brain. A person can believe in elves or fairies
> without ever having seen any evidence for or against the proposition
> that elves and fairies exist, because belief doesn't care about
> evidence.
>

> Belief doesn't want to hear about information to the contrary. Belief


> spits in the face of logic. Belief is just a matter of whim, and
> nothing more.

And this differs from your correspondence exactly how?
>
>snip

--
"Mr. Ghandi, what do you think of Western Civilization?"
"I think it would be a good idea."

Joel Shurkin
Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions
Baltimore

Joel Shurkin

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 12:53:48 PM8/11/02
to
In article <ulcu5tg...@corp.supernews.com>, Eliyahu
<lro...@hotmail.com> wrote:

And there is nothing wrong with faith. I'm astonished at how troubled
some people on this list have with faith or belief. Could there be,
deep down in side, just a little smidgeon of doubt? Of course
not......
>
> Eliyahu

J. J. Levin

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 12:54:28 PM8/11/02
to
>
>
>>Fiona wrote:
>>
>>>The fact that you are here today, as a Jew, is proof that Sinai happened.
>>>Prove me wrong.
>>>


No, Fiona. No one can prove you wrong, and you
cannot prove that you are right. That's why religion
is all a matter of belief.

There are hundreds of millions of Christians and
Muslims who are absolutely, positively convinced
that you are wrong and that they are right. They
all have ancient books (as we Jews do), "proving"
how right they are and how wrong everyone else is.
Our books are older (which "proves" we're the original
right ones) and their books are newer, which means that
their theories are newer and that therefore "proves" that
their prophet superseded ours or that God changed
his mind about the Jews or whatever else they wish to believe.

Lisa brought forth a long and wonderfully written treatise
about how religion is about knowledge and not belief.
More power to her for being able to type so well (and for
so long). But it doesn't really prove anything except
that a good lawyer will "prove" that the ham sandwich
committed the murder. It still comes down to belief.


Jay

Joel Shurkin

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 12:55:28 PM8/11/02
to

Does the phrase "non-sequitur" ring a bell?

j
>
> Fiona

Joel Shurkin

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 12:58:23 PM8/11/02
to
In article <slrnalcuig....@amanda.dorsai.org>, Sheldon
Ackerman <acke...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote:

What if I had a DNA test and the DNA test said my father was my father?

j

Talqcom

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 1:19:07 PM8/11/02
to
>Subject: Re: Belief vs. Conviction: A Primer
>From: "John Likakis" blur...@sover.net
>Date: 8/11/2002 9:55 AM Eastern Standard Time

>Jim, you and Talqcom are drifting in the wrong direction here. This isn't
>about trying to prove or disprove the validity of Torah--it's about the
>distinction between believing and knowing.

Using the Tora's veracity as an example.

I am precisely illustrating the fact that something may be true to one, but not
verifiable to another.

Hence the intimate conection between "truth" and "belief" in Hebrew (unlike
Greek) which have the same root.

Tht eword "proof" assumes a certain manner of proof. It is not a demonstration
equal in all times and contexts of an objective fact.

I am less stressing the truth of the Tora than the subjectivity of "proof." I
reject the entire either/or nature of truth/belief as was articulated here.

>In that vein, Dan is absolutely correct. Looked at from a completely
>disconnected and dispassionate POV,

Wrong. This is where we part intellectual paths. LIke Barthes, I do not
believe in the innocent reading, which you just articulated in all its glory.
To quote Jeremy Campbell "there is no immaculate perception." This is the
bedrock of quantum physics.

>Western religions: They've got a book (actually, several books) and claim
>those books to be the word of G-d. Just like the Xians, just like the
>Muslims.

Jews alone claim (and intuitvely assume) a mass revelation.

>Thus, from a position of pure logic

Which itself I say is never pure or objective,

>the "proof" for Judaism is on exactly
>the same level as the man receiving a revelation in a cave or a dozen
>individuals witnessing a resurrection.

The latter would hardly make an imprint on the national psyche or develop into
an archetype.

>they're working from belief.

I believe that is false.

>Yes, the printed pages exist

I fnd that rather Pauline. The unwritten pages also exist. Or, if you like
Wittgensteinian modles, the unwritten book -- which is more important of the
two -- also exists.

> their origin is a matter
>of belief.

Actually of perceptional choice.

Ray

Talqcom

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 1:20:41 PM8/11/02
to
>Subject: Re: Belief vs. Conviction: A Primer
>From: Joel Shurkin jo...@nasw.org
>Date: 8/11/2002 12:58 PM Eastern Standard Time

>What if I had a DNA test and the DNA test said my father was my father?

DNA tests, being non binary, never ever say that. They say, within the
assumptions of the test being valid, a certain probability exists that the
first sample is from the father of the second sample.

Ray

Talqcom

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 1:33:44 PM8/11/02
to
>Subject: Re: Belief vs. Conviction: A Primer
>From: "Dan Kimmel" dan.k...@worldnet.att.net
>Date: 8/11/2002 9:50 AM Eastern Standard Time

>You've leapt to the wrong conclusion.

Which would be? Is there only one conclusion.

> The Gettysburgh Address isn't a
>"repeatable experiment" either, yet no one questions the historicity of its
>deliverance.

So? If correct, you have just disproved your own two valued system.

>And you're playing word games. If you claim it is not belief but truth, but
>can only offer your belief as proof, you're making my case for me.
>

I have no interest in making any case for you. Believe me. Or truth me. Or
whatever.

I am articulating the defect in your two valued system. I may be wrong and yes
playing word games. You may be wrong and not understanding what my words
denote in reality. How would one know? A matter of truth? Or belief?

>"Collective memory" is not proof.

Maybe. Depends on one's notions of proof, and whose memory. I agree, not
proof in a repeatable experimental way.

I began saying that certain true things cannot be proved. I reject the
identity of "provable" and "true."

>One need
>only read the Tanakh to know that your "collective memory" failed even in
>ancient times among the Israelites.

I do not see this point. Reading the tanakh where, and in particular what
sections proves what about the failure of collective memory to do what exactly?
Failure to establish that the Tora recounts actual events? How so?

>Centuries ago everyone "knew" the world
>was flat. And that the Earth was the center of the universe. Half a
>century ago Christians "knew" that the Jews killed their deity.

All examples not dependent upon a collective memory of a collective event.

>I see the failure to even understand the discussion as the effect of closing
>one's mind, certain that one's beliefs must be true.

Beacause you have a bias, and are ignorant.

I suspect you would say the same thing to Wittgenstein. Fortunately I can read
Wittgenstein and Barthes and the gamut of quantum physicists and the genetic
epistemologists, and I find people who do not use the same hackneyed argument
about closed minds etc.

You know nothing whatsoever about me. Nothing about whether I closed opened or
investigated anything about my mind and my views. You only know that *for you*
what I say is so absurd it can only be a the result of religous closed
mindedness.

Perhaps my religion is still centuries ahead of your evolved views on
epistemology.

>As for your flawed analogy, one can do a spectrographic analysis so that
>even if one can not "see" blue, one can measure that it reflects light in
>that range of the spectrum.

But before spectography was avalable, one could not. Blue was still blue, yet
the issue unprovable. The point is there are *always* scientific *facts*
which at some point are not demonstrable.

What exactly do you think Campbell means when he says "there is no immaculate
perception"? Is he laboring under a closed mindedness as well, or are you?

Ray

Talqcom

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 1:38:06 PM8/11/02
to
>Subject: Re: Belief vs. Conviction: A Primer
>From: "Eliyahu" lro...@hotmail.com
>Date: 8/11/2002 10:44 AM Eastern Standard Time

>To put it most simply, we can't just claim
>that the Torah is true just because the Torah says it's true. That's where
>faith comes in.

But we neither claimed unassailable truth, because we doubt the unassailability
of *any* truth.

We also never admitted to (mere) faith, because we can perceive reflections of
actual events without resorting to *only* the words.

Ray

Talqcom

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 1:41:45 PM8/11/02
to
>Subject: Re: Belief vs. Conviction: A Primer
>From: Joel Shurkin jo...@nasw.org
>Date: 8/11/2002 12:53 PM Eastern Standard Time

>And there is nothing wrong with faith.

Maybe, but faith is not the issue. You say it is, maybe. I say there is more
than the either/or. That is what generates the consternation here.

>I'm astonished at how troubled
>some people on this list have with faith or belief. Could there be,
>deep down in side, just a little smidgeon of doubt?

The other shoe, fits equally as well, as follows: why is it so necessary to
demonstrate the undemonstrability of the events described by the Tora because
one finds no "objective evidence"?

Why is it so important to stomp out the value of collective memory ( which,
BTW, all of Jungian depth psychology is built upon) when it deals with Judaism?

Is it a smidgeon of a need to convince one's self?


Ray

Talqcom

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 1:43:46 PM8/11/02
to
>Subject: Re: Belief vs. Conviction: A Primer
>From: "Robert" judai...@yahoo.com.spammenot
>Date: 8/11/2002 11:59 AM Eastern Standard Time

>I suspect that her views are not representative of the denomiantions she
>hews to.

I suggest your method of dealing in denominations is a total waste of your and
our time.

The species is never wholly subsumed by the genus.

You should consider dealing with her, and not her abstract "denomination."

Ray

Talqcom

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 1:46:41 PM8/11/02
to
>Subject: Re: Belief vs. Conviction: A Primer
>From: "J. J. Levin" fin...@worldnet.att.net
>Date: 8/11/2002 12:54 PM Eastern Standard Time

>But it doesn't really prove anything except
>that a good lawyer will "prove" that the ham sandwich
>committed the murder. It still comes down to belief.

That fine example of typing proves that if Barthes and Wittgenstien and
Campbell are on to something, you have missed it completely. If you did not at
some point wholly miss it, you have reverted to the binarism characteristic of
the pre modern age.

It all comes down to epistemology.

Ray

Lisa

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 2:37:27 PM8/11/02
to
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 11:50:47 +0000 (UTC), tal...@aol.com (Talqcom)
wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Belief vs. Conviction: A Primer

>>From: "Dan Kimmel" dan.k...@worldnet.att.net

>>Date: 8/11/2002 7:07 AM Eastern Standard Time
>

>>Stop right there. What *evidence* is there for this?
>

>As a repeatable experiment, none. But the Tora is not a high school science
>project, and we are under no duty to prove anything to you.
>

>> You don't "know"
>>this. You "believe" it. It is not objective, verifiable fact, it is
>>belief.
>

>You have an absolute two valued orientation. This of course was evident to me
>in the all/nothing at all manner you see the school voucher issue.
>
>To you there may be only crap or gold. Absolute immediate and visual
>knowledge, or "belief."

Right. Mathematical proof can't ever be brought for 99% percent of
the things that we accept as premises in our lives. Dan isn't capable
of proving, for example, that the reaction that fuels the sun is
fusion. He can't prove that the moon has about 1/6 the gravitational
pull of the Earth. But he wouldn't label those as "beliefs" because
they conform to his world view.

>Obviously to me and to the classical Jews, there is something in between.
>

>>I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying, "Where's the proof?"
>

>Jewish collective memory. At some point one can be so assimilated they can no
>longer access this. At this point it appears there is zero, and proof is
>required.

And I don't think Ray means this in a Jungian sense, though I could be
mistaken. I wouldn't mean that, at least. When you're part of a
culture in which facts have been passed down from teacher to student
over and over, with x1,000,000 redunancy, for millenia, it's somewhere
between humorous and tragic to hear someone who has cut himself off
from that, stuck his fingers in his ears and gone "La la la la I can't
hear you la la la la" asking for proof.

>>And answering, "The Torah says so" is simply circular reasoning since it is
>>the objective truth of the Torah (as opposed to belief that it is true) that
>>is being questioned in the first place.
>
>Or it is an expression of self evidence, which one either has to perceive or
>they do not. Ten sighted man cannot prove that they can see to a blind world.
>"Prove that there is blue" "Prove that this is blue" they will say. You
>cannot prove that something is blue.
>
>I see the request for reasoned proof as the effect of assimilation.

Amen.

Lisa

Lisa

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 2:37:57 PM8/11/02
to
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:53:48 +0000 (UTC), Joel Shurkin <jo...@nasw.org>
wrote:

Faith and belief mean putting your brain into deep freeze and acting
on an irrational whim or impulse. Yeah, you're damned right I have a
problem with that. If you want to go with credo, quia absurdum,
you're in the wrong religion.

Lisa

Lisa

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 2:39:03 PM8/11/02
to

"It's a wise child knows his father"

Lisa

Lisa

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 2:39:40 PM8/11/02
to
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:50:05 +0000 (UTC), Joel Shurkin <jo...@nasw.org>
wrote:

>In article <3d55de8...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>, Lisa


><li...@starways.net> wrote:
>
>> A certain escapee from my killfile (don't worry; that won't happen
>> again) wrote:
>>
>> >Lisa does not claim to believe in
>> >the truth of Torah. She declares the truth of the Torah as being something
>> >outside the realm of belief, as something that isn't "believed,"
>>
>> And added:
>>
>> >And further, she declares not just that "Torah" is truth, but
>> >that the set of traditions that she declares as being the Torah to be
>> >truth, and that this declaration too is outside the realm of belief, but
>> >is objective fact.
>>
>> It's amazing to me that this person has once again twisted what I
>> wrote and attributed to me the exact opposite of what I wrote. But of
>> course, that's what earned him entrance to my killfile before.
>> Sometimes I'm a slow learner.
>
>He correctly reported what you wrote and if you find that painful,
>don't be surprised.


I have two words for you, Joel. "Reading comprehension". Work on it.
Oh, sorry, that's five words. Oops! Here's another: >plonk<

Lisa

Fiona

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 3:16:30 PM8/11/02
to

Talqcom wrote in message <20020811134709...@mb-mk.aol.com>...

Mah?

R

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 3:18:07 PM8/11/02
to

Chochmat hazevuvim vehayitushim.

J. J. Levin

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 3:22:00 PM8/11/02
to
I believe the days of Messiah are approaching. We agree
on =somnething=   :-)

Jay







Joel Shurkin

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 4:06:22 PM8/11/02
to
In article <20020811134301...@mb-mk.aol.com>, Talqcom
<tal...@aol.com> wrote:

We are getting off the discussion. My argument is merely that there are
correspondents on this list who KNOW what they do not KNOW. If someone
wants to believe something, they have every right to do so. The
argument is about knowing, not believing.

I don't KNOW if the Torah is true or whether the Oral Torah came from
God. And neither does anyone else here. If you are convinced it is so
from your readings and thinking, perfectly fine. You may believe what
you want. It is the assertion that you KNOW the truth and have the
chutpah to call people names who do not accept your truth that is the
issue here.

j


>
>
> Ray

Joel Shurkin

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 4:07:28 PM8/11/02
to
In article <3d56a56c...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>, Lisa
<li...@starways.net> wrote:

One of us sure the hell is.

j

Lisa

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 4:08:01 PM8/11/02
to
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 18:47:58 +0000 (UTC), Julie
<txj...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>Then you'll have no problem providing an objective proof of
>the existence of G-d, no?

Hell, Julie, I can't give you objective proof that I just sneezed.
But I did, and I'm not going to state it with weasel words like "In my
opinion, I just sneezed", or "In my experience, the proposition that I
just sneezed appears to be true". <gag>

And I'll repeat, again and again and again and again if need be, that
no one requires objective proof for 99% of the things that they use as
premises in their lives. And 99% may be on the low side. We don't
require 100% objective, mathematically rigid proof to put someone in
jail for the rest of his life. Or even kill him.

All we need is enough evidence for it to be a rational thing to be
convinced of. Which is not the same thing as "believing" just because
it feels right. Which is no knowledge at all.

Lisa

Joel Shurkin

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 4:09:27 PM8/11/02
to
In article <20020811132120...@mb-mk.aol.com>, Talqcom
<tal...@aol.com> wrote:

I recommend you stick to Wittgenstein.

Lisa

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 4:11:06 PM8/11/02
to

The branch of philosophy dealing with how we think.

Lisa

Lisa

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 4:12:31 PM8/11/02
to
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 17:43:46 +0000 (UTC), tal...@aol.com (Talqcom)
wrote:

>>Subject: Re: Belief vs. Conviction: A Primer

Kaiser enjoys this sort of red herring. He likes to pretend to some
kind of knowledge of what Orthodox Judaism is, despite his repeated
proof (the nonsense he posts) that he wouldn't know what real
Orthodoxy was if it hit him in the head.

Lisa

Lisa

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 4:13:27 PM8/11/02
to
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:58:23 +0000 (UTC), Joel Shurkin <jo...@nasw.org>
wrote:

>In article <slrnalcuig....@amanda.dorsai.org>, Sheldon


>Ackerman <acke...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote:
>
>> In article <pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org>, John Likakis wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Jim, you and Talqcom are drifting in the wrong direction here. This isn't
>> >about trying to prove or disprove the validity of Torah--it's about the
>> >distinction between believing and knowing.
>> >
>> >In that vein, Dan is absolutely correct. Looked at from a completely
>> >disconnected and dispassionate POV, Judaism is just like the rest of the
>> >Western religions: They've got a book (actually, several books) and claim
>> >those books to be the word of G-d. Just like the Xians, just like the
>> >Muslims.
>>
>> As I asked in another message , do you know who your father is or was, or do
>> you only believe that you know?
>
>What if I had a DNA test and the DNA test said my father was my father?

DNA testing is statistical at best.

Lisa

Lisa

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 4:14:01 PM8/11/02
to
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:04:17 +0000 (UTC), Julie
<txj...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>Dan Kimmel wrote:
>>
>> "James Kahn" <ka...@nospam.panix.com> wrote in message
>> news:aj5ndn$s74$1...@reader2.panix.com...
>> > How do you "prove" anything? How do you know that the men really
>> > walked on the moon? There are people who believe the whole thing
>> > was staged. How do you know the holocaust really happened? Now
>> > consider how one could "prove" that something happened 3,000 years
>> > ago? At some point a demand for "proof" is just a rhetorical device
>> > equivalent to "I don't want to think about this any further."
>>
>> Now that's a truly bizarre response. In fact, it's equivalent to I *do*
>> want to think about it and object to attempts to foreclose thought by
>> saying, "It's true. We know it. End of discussion."


>>
>> And your examples fail because of scientific, documentary, and eyewitness
>> evidence proving that both events happened.
>

>No, they don't fail. Sooner or later everyone who has that kind of
>direct experience will be dead.


>
>> Now how do you prove what happened at Sinai? The answer is obvious: you
>> can't. Therefore we accept the Torah on faith and belief, not because we
>> "know" it is demonstrably true.
>

>For the same reason that sooner or later people will say "Prove that
>we landed on the moon!" (some already do, but that's beside the
>point). Eventually everyone who was there died, and the people they
>told their first-hand accounts died, and the people who heard second-
>hand died, and so on.

Capricorn 7!

Lisa

Lisa

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 4:16:04 PM8/11/02
to
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 13:03:43 +0000 (UTC), ka...@nospam.panix.com (James
Kahn) wrote:

>In <KAr59.7848$Ep6.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>>"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
>>news:3d55de8...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
>>>
>>> Torah is not about belief. If religions are based on belief, then
>>> Judaism is not a religion. The Torah is about knowledge.
>>> Information. The reason it was revealed in front of about 3 million
>>> men, women and children was so that people wouldn't need to rely on
>>> belief. Other religions have a man receiving a revelation in a cave
>>> all by himself. Or have a dozen individuals witnessing a
>>> resurrection. How convenient.
>
>>Stop right there. What *evidence* is there for this? You don't "know"


>>this. You "believe" it. It is not objective, verifiable fact, it is
>>belief.
>

>>I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying, "Where's the proof?"
>

>How do you "prove" anything? How do you know that the men really
>walked on the moon? There are people who believe the whole thing
>was staged. How do you know the holocaust really happened? Now
>consider how one could "prove" that something happened 3,000 years
>ago? At some point a demand for "proof" is just a rhetorical device
>equivalent to "I don't want to think about this any further."

How about the Kingdom of Ephraim? Back in the last 1600s, around
where Oregon is now, a group of Jews who had immigrated to North
America made their way out there and created a Jewish settlement,
which they called Ephraim.

These were Sephardim (which may account for the degree to which their
history goes untold in most US Jewish communities), and there was a
family among them who had a tradition of having been descended from
the Davidic line. So the Ephraimites set up a kingdom. They lived
accoring to Jewish law, and thrived, for the most part, well into the
early 1700s. There was correspondance between them and some Jewish
communities in the east, but by the time large scale settlement
reached the area, they'd died out. Some historians think that they
lost too many of their men in skirmishes with the local Indian tribes,
and others think it may have been disease or a particularly hard
winter or series of winters.

Most of us heard about the Kingdom of Ephraim in Hebrew school, but it
was never taught in public schools, so many of us may have forgotten
about it.

And the question is, do you think that if I were to repeat this a
hundred million times and write a book about it that reached the New
York Times bestsellers list, that I could get as many as a hundred
people to believe it? That such kingdom existed? That we learned
about it, but just forgot it?

What kind of utter imbeciles do you think our ancestors were? What
kind of misplaced arrogance and superiority to you have to adopt to
imagine that they could have all been fooled into agreeing that there
was a revelation at Sinai at which we were given the Torah?

Lisa

Lisa

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 4:18:21 PM8/11/02
to
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 14:01:56 +0000 (UTC), Micha Berger
<mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 13:50:47 +0000 (UTC), Dan Kimmel <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>: You've leapt to the wrong conclusion. The Gettysburgh Address isn't a
>: "repeatable experiment" either, yet no one questions the historicity of its
>: deliverance.
>
>Give 'em three millenia, then talk.

Yep. And I can't help thinking about this argument I got into with an
Israeli. He insisted that the US had 51 states. I was blown away and
explained to him that we had 50 states. He was *adamant* (based on
what?) that 50 couldn't be a real number, since it was obviously a
round number and an approximation.

I couldn't believe what I was hearing, so I started going around and
asking people how many states there were in the US. I got 49 and 51
and 52 almost exclusively from Israelis. Almost none of them were
willing to accept 50. It was surreal. Sort of like what's happening
her. And before any of you ask, they weren't counting Israel as state
51.

I got a similar reaction about the 70 year span of the Soviet Union.
I mean, come *on*! Babylon lasted 70 years, and it was even
prophecied that it'd be that long. And the Soviet Union persecuted
the Jews and lasted 70 years. It's not going to be 100 years before
people start claiming that's folklore and insist on proof.

Which in this case we can give them, since the volume of written
material these days is billions of times greater than it was then, not
even counting the written material from those times which didn't
survive until today.

Lisa

Lisa

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 4:19:00 PM8/11/02
to
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 11:07:17 +0000 (UTC), "Dan Kimmel"
<dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
>news:3d55de8...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
>>
>> Torah is not about belief. If religions are based on belief, then
>> Judaism is not a religion. The Torah is about knowledge.
>> Information. The reason it was revealed in front of about 3 million
>> men, women and children was so that people wouldn't need to rely on
>> belief. Other religions have a man receiving a revelation in a cave
>> all by himself. Or have a dozen individuals witnessing a
>> resurrection. How convenient.
>
>Stop right there.

Of course. Because reading the rest of the post and seeing that I
already answered your objection would have taken a bit too much in the
way of mental energy, right?

Lisa

Eliyahu

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 4:23:21 PM8/11/02
to

"Julie" <txj...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3D568125...@austin.rr.com...

>
>
> > Now how do you prove what happened at Sinai? The answer is obvious: you
> > can't. Therefore we accept the Torah on faith and belief, not because
we
> > "know" it is demonstrably true.
>
> For the same reason that sooner or later people will say "Prove that
> we landed on the moon!" (some already do, but that's beside the
> point). Eventually everyone who was there died, and the people they
> told their first-hand accounts died, and the people who heard second-
> hand died, and so on.
> --
Not a good parallel. We have physical evidence of the lunar visits, both
here on earth and on the moon.

Eliyahu

Julie

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 4:52:25 PM8/11/02
to
Lisa wrote:
>
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 18:47:58 +0000 (UTC), Julie
> <txj...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Lisa wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:53:48 +0000 (UTC), Joel Shurkin <jo...@nasw.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> >And there is nothing wrong with faith. I'm astonished at how troubled
> >> >some people on this list have with faith or belief. Could there be,
> >> >deep down in side, just a little smidgeon of doubt? Of course
> >> >not......
> >>
> >> Faith and belief mean putting your brain into deep freeze and acting
> >> on an irrational whim or impulse. Yeah, you're damned right I have a
> >> problem with that. If you want to go with credo, quia absurdum,
> >> you're in the wrong religion.
> >
> >Then you'll have no problem providing an objective proof of
> >the existence of G-d, no?
>
> Hell, Julie, I can't give you objective proof that I just sneezed.
> But I did, and I'm not going to state it with weasel words like "In my
> opinion, I just sneezed", or "In my experience, the proposition that I
> just sneezed appears to be true". <gag>

LOL.

> And I'll repeat, again and again and again and again if need be, that
> no one requires objective proof for 99% of the things that they use as
> premises in their lives. And 99% may be on the low side. We don't
> require 100% objective, mathematically rigid proof to put someone in
> jail for the rest of his life. Or even kill him.

No dispute there, but what do you call the process by which we
fill in the gaps? "Quasiknowledge"? "Almost Certainty"? "More
than just guessing"?

> All we need is enough evidence for it to be a rational thing to be
> convinced of. Which is not the same thing as "believing" just because
> it feels right. Which is no knowledge at all.

There have been billions of Christians who'd claim they had that
same level of knowledge. Ditto for Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus,
etc. Many of those people have been on pilgrimages, seen all the
sights in all the "holy places", prayed or whatever for their
god to give them things, etc.

For all you really know, Judaism is a system of self-reinforcing
self-delusion. "My mother was Jewish four thousand years ago and
therefore it's all true," when for all you know your mother four
thousand years ago was worshipping three headed monsters who eat
villages whole.

You're mocking other people's religious beliefs (which is always a
fun sport) while failing to comprehend that the arguments you use
are the same as the ones they use to mock you.
--
Julianne Frances Haugh Life is either a daring adventure
txj...@austin.rr.com or nothing at all.
-- Helen Keller

Herman Rubin

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 4:58:37 PM8/11/02
to
In article <3D568125...@austin.rr.com>,

Julie <txj...@austin.rr.com> wrote:
>Dan Kimmel wrote:

>> "James Kahn" <ka...@nospam.panix.com> wrote in message
>> news:aj5ndn$s74$1...@reader2.panix.com...

>> > How do you "prove" anything? How do you know that the men really
>> > walked on the moon? There are people who believe the whole thing
>> > was staged. How do you know the holocaust really happened? Now
>> > consider how one could "prove" that something happened 3,000 years
>> > ago? At some point a demand for "proof" is just a rhetorical device
>> > equivalent to "I don't want to think about this any further."

>> Now that's a truly bizarre response. In fact, it's equivalent to I *do*


>> want to think about it and object to attempts to foreclose thought by
>> saying, "It's true. We know it. End of discussion."

>> And your examples fail because of scientific, documentary, and eyewitness
>> evidence proving that both events happened.

>No, they don't fail. Sooner or later everyone who has that kind of
>direct experience will be dead.

>> Now how do you prove what happened at Sinai? The answer is obvious: you


>> can't. Therefore we accept the Torah on faith and belief, not because we
>> "know" it is demonstrably true.

>For the same reason that sooner or later people will say "Prove that
>we landed on the moon!" (some already do, but that's beside the
>point). Eventually everyone who was there died, and the people they
>told their first-hand accounts died, and the people who heard second-
>hand died, and so on.

But they often leave records, and some of these records
can be said to be crosschecked. We have the name of the
architect of the first pyramid. We have a reasonably
correct list of all the Egyptian pharaohs, including many
claimants at the same time. We have dates verified by
eclipses. We have archaelogical evidence. And still we
have questions.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hru...@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

Herman Rubin

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 5:10:13 PM8/11/02
to
In article <20020811132120...@mb-mk.aol.com>,

Talqcom <tal...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Belief vs. Conviction: A Primer
>>From: Joel Shurkin jo...@nasw.org
>>Date: 8/11/2002 12:58 PM Eastern Standard Time

>>What if I had a DNA test and the DNA test said my father was my father?

>DNA tests, being non binary, never ever say that. They say, within the


>assumptions of the test being valid, a certain probability exists that the
>first sample is from the father of the second sample.

They do not even say that. They give the possibility, and
even here some changes need to be considered. The stated
probabilities are based upon clearly wrong assumptions.

Lisa

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 7:25:24 PM8/11/02
to
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 19:22:00 +0000 (UTC), "J. J. Levin"
<fin...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>--------------000907070905040806040003
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

That is, of course, if you couldn't care less about how human beings
think.

Lisa

Lisa

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 7:25:55 PM8/11/02
to
On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 20:10:06 +0000 (UTC), Julie
<txj...@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>Lisa wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 11:50:47 +0000 (UTC), tal...@aol.com (Talqcom)
>> wrote:
>> >Jewish collective memory. At some point one can be so assimilated they can no
>> >longer access this. At this point it appears there is zero, and proof is
>> >required.
>>
>> And I don't think Ray means this in a Jungian sense, though I could be
>> mistaken. I wouldn't mean that, at least. When you're part of a
>> culture in which facts have been passed down from teacher to student
>> over and over, with x1,000,000 redunancy, for millenia, it's somewhere
>> between humorous and tragic to hear someone who has cut himself off
>> from that, stuck his fingers in his ears and gone "La la la la I can't
>> hear you la la la la" asking for proof.
>

>Christianity makes the EXACT SAME CLAIM.

Nope. They have a handful of witnesses. Or rather, a handful of
witnesses claimed by a couple of people to have seen something.

Doesn't compare to our 3 million eyewitnesses and the million-fold
redundancy of that event having been passed down.

>Any time the answer is "collective memory" you've got to address
>the issue of how many hundreds of millions of Christians out there
>also have a collective memory.

Nope. Not when it started from an acknowledged point of a handful of
people at best.

>It's a shame you (probably) didn't spend more time actually
>=talking= to Christians or Moslems because then you'd grasp
>the idiocy of "we've believed this for a really long time, so
>therefore it's true".

It's a shame that you can't distinguish between 3 million people
seeing God talk to them and one illiterate shepherd in a cave.

Lisa

Talqcom

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 7:39:55 PM8/11/02
to
>Subject: Re: Belief vs. Conviction: A Primer
>From: Joel Shurkin jo...@nasw.org
>Date: 8/11/2002 4:06 PM Eastern Standard Time

>It is the assertion that you KNOW the truth and have the
>chutpah to call people names who do not accept your truth that is the
>issue here.

I find it egocentirc to keep telling someone who sees blue that they are
hallucinating.

I also find that with the pelthora of modern non Rabbinic thought I referred to
on the issue of there being more options than just KNOWING or BELIEVING,
somebody intelligent would address those issues, at least recognize other
humans have and have rejected the binarism as well, or at least consider the
posibility before repeating again and again KNOW vs. BELIEVE like some equine
mantra in an Orwellian agrarian drama.

You can refuse to accept other people's fundamental right to opt for the
nonidentity of "truth" and "provable." You can insisit you alone know all
there is to know about knowing.

I am a Jew. I can disagree.

Ray

Talqcom

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 7:45:53 PM8/11/02
to
>Subject: Re: Belief vs. Conviction: A Primer
>From: li...@starways.net (Lisa)
>Date: 8/11/2002 2:37 PM Eastern Standard Time

>>Jewish collective memory. At some point one can be so assimilated they can
>no
>>longer access this. At this point it appears there is zero, and proof is
>>required.

>And I don't think Ray means this in a Jungian sense, though I could be
>mistaken.

I mean Tora shebe'al Pe and what Maimonides calls 'elem il-daruri, an intuitive
knowledge.

However, for non Judeo Arabic speakers, how do I translate accross cultural
lines? So the Jungian notion of an imprint on an entire group's psyche is a
good approximation for 'elem il-daruri. The kabbalists use the term kenesseth
yisra'el for a similar idea.


>When you're part of a
>culture in which facts have been passed down from teacher to student
>over and over, with x1,000,000 redunancy, for millenia

This aspect, the conscious passing of a Tora shebe'al pe, of course functions
as a "repeater" for the subconscious imprint on the kenesseth yisra'el.

Ray

Talqcom

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 7:51:15 PM8/11/02
to
>Subject: Re: Belief vs. Conviction: A Primer
>From: Joel Shurkin jo...@nasw.org
>Date: 8/11/2002 4:09 PM Eastern Standard Time

>> DNA tests, being non binary, never ever say that. They say, within the
>> assumptions of the test being valid, a certain probability exists that the
>> first sample is from the father of the second sample.
>>
>> Ray
>
>I recommend you stick to Wittgenstein.
>
>j


I reccommend you develop humility. Last time you interviewed, hired or cross
examined a DNA expert in a criminal trial
was when exactly.

Show me one, just one a single solitary DNA test that does not read just as I
said.

Did you totally miss the OJ trial?? Or you just cannot stand not getting the
last word in on a primitive medievalist Jew?

Shem resha'im yirqabh.

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 8:04:22 PM8/11/02
to

"Talqcom" <tal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020811134301...@mb-mk.aol.com...

> >Subject: Re: Belief vs. Conviction: A Primer
> >From: Joel Shurkin jo...@nasw.org
> >Date: 8/11/2002 12:53 PM Eastern Standard Time
>
> >And there is nothing wrong with faith.
>
> Maybe, but faith is not the issue. You say it is, maybe. I say there is
more
> than the either/or. That is what generates the consternation here.
>
> >I'm astonished at how troubled
> >some people on this list have with faith or belief. Could there be,
> >deep down in side, just a little smidgeon of doubt?
>
> The other shoe, fits equally as well, as follows: why is it so necessary
to
> demonstrate the undemonstrability of the events described by the Tora
because
> one finds no "objective evidence"?
>
> Why is it so important to stomp out the value of collective memory (
which,
> BTW, all of Jungian depth psychology is built upon) when it deals with
Judaism?
>
> Is it a smidgeon of a need to convince one's self?

Everyone here who thinks there's any reality to Jungian collective memory,
raise their hands.

Hmmm, as I suspected.

This isn't a matter of selectively excluding Jewish "collective memory."

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 8:04:32 PM8/11/02
to

"Eliyahu" <lro...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ulcu5tg...@corp.supernews.com...

>
> "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
> news:aj5qqc$1833s7$1...@ID-113975.news.dfncis.de...
> > Monotheism isn't empirically provable, neither is atheism, nor
> > polytheism... But you can prove by tautology that of them must be True.
> >
> OTOH, you can't prove _which_ of them is true. And Dan didn't say that his
> conclusions about religion must be based on empirical data; only that we
> can't make a blanket statement about the absolute and unassailable truth
of
> our beliefs by citing those beliefs as proof that they're true. "Proof by
> repeated assertion" doesn't prove anything except that the claimant
> fervently believes the statement. To put it most simply, we can't just
claim
> that the Torah is true just because the Torah says it's true. That's where
> faith comes in.

Precisely. Just because something isn't provable doesn't mean it isn't
true. But it does mean it's not provable.

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 8:04:33 PM8/11/02
to

"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:aj5qqc$1833s7$1...@ID-113975.news.dfncis.de...
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 13:50:47 +0000 (UTC), Dan Kimmel
<dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> : You've leapt to the wrong conclusion. The Gettysburgh Address isn't a
> : "repeatable experiment" either, yet no one questions the historicity of
its
> : deliverance.
>
> Give 'em three millenia, then talk.
>
> There is also strong emotional reason to deny a religious claim that
> doesn't hold for the Gettysburgh Address.
>
> : I see the failure to even understand the discussion as the effect of
closing
> : one's mind, certain that one's beliefs must be true.
>
> And I see the failure on the other side: as being one of not having the
> audacity to be sure of things one can't prove to determined skeptics.
>
> : As for your flawed analogy, one can do a spectrographic analysis so that
> : even if one can not "see" blue, one can measure that it reflects light
in

> : that range of the spectrum.
>
> Actually, not every blue object that appears identically to the view
> reflects the same frequencies. Any combination of frequencies that causes
> the red, green and blue cones in the viewer's retina, and provide the same
> brightness reaction to the rod to fire identically will look the same.
> Color is more biology than physics.
>
> And color isn't only in an object's relationship to the viewer. It's
> also in the lighting, the viewer's psychological state, etc...
>
> But in any case, spectra are empirical. If you require that all of
> your conclusions be based on empirical data, you've already denied
> the truth of religion of any sort.
>
> Monotheism isn't empirically provable, neither is atheism, nor
> polytheism... But you can prove by tautology that of them must be True.


And the bottom line is, therefore, we can believe, but we can't know for
certain. We can believe and act AS IF we know, but the truth is -- in the
end -- it is a matter of faith and belief and NOT certain knowledge.

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 8:04:34 PM8/11/02
to

"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
news:3d56a425...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...

> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 14:01:56 +0000 (UTC), Micha Berger
> <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 13:50:47 +0000 (UTC), Dan Kimmel
<dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >: You've leapt to the wrong conclusion. The Gettysburgh Address isn't a
> >: "repeatable experiment" either, yet no one questions the historicity of
its
> >: deliverance.
> >
> >Give 'em three millenia, then talk.
>
> Yep. And I can't help thinking about this argument I got into with an
> Israeli. He insisted that the US had 51 states. I was blown away and
> explained to him that we had 50 states. He was *adamant* (based on
> what?) that 50 couldn't be a real number, since it was obviously a
> round number and an approximation.
>
> I couldn't believe what I was hearing, so I started going around and
> asking people how many states there were in the US. I got 49 and 51
> and 52 almost exclusively from Israelis. Almost none of them were
> willing to accept 50. It was surreal. Sort of like what's happening
> her. And before any of you ask, they weren't counting Israel as state
> 51.

That is truly bizarre. Never heard that before. Of course the answer is to
have the person name the states using whatever reference they prefer. Then
you can tell them which one they missed, or watched them turn red when they
hit 50 and can't find any more.

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 8:04:37 PM8/11/02
to

"John Likakis" <blur...@sover.net> wrote in message
news:pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org...
> In article <aj5ndn$s74$1...@reader2.panix.com>, ka...@nospam.panix.com (James

> Kahn) wrote:
>
> > In <KAr59.7848$Ep6.5...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> "Dan
Kimmel"
> > <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> >
> > >"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
> > >news:3d55de8...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
> > >>
> > >> Torah is not about belief. If religions are based on belief, then
> > >> Judaism is not a religion. The Torah is about knowledge.
> > >> Information. The reason it was revealed in front of about 3 million
> > >> men, women and children was so that people wouldn't need to rely on
> > >> belief. Other religions have a man receiving a revelation in a cave
> > >> all by himself. Or have a dozen individuals witnessing a
> > >> resurrection. How convenient.
> >
> > >Stop right there. What *evidence* is there for this? You don't "know"
> > >this. You "believe" it. It is not objective, verifiable fact, it is
> > >belief.
> >
> > >I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying, "Where's the proof?"
> >
> > How do you "prove" anything?
>
> Jim, you and Talqcom are drifting in the wrong direction here. This isn't
> about trying to prove or disprove the validity of Torah--it's about the
> distinction between believing and knowing.
>
> In that vein, Dan is absolutely correct. Looked at from a completely
> disconnected and dispassionate POV, Judaism is just like the rest of the
> Western religions: They've got a book (actually, several books) and claim
> those books to be the word of G-d. Just like the Xians, just like the
> Muslims.
>
> There is no concrete proof to support ANY of these claims. There are only
> the books. The result is completely circular reasoning to support the
> claims. It goes like this: [book] is the absolute and binding word of G-d.
I
> know this because [book] tells me it is the absolute and binding word of
> G-d.
>
> Thus, from a position of pure logic, the "proof" for Judaism is on exactly
> the same level as the man receiving a revelation in a cave or a dozen
> individuals witnessing a resurrection. As in, no proof at all. Hence, no
> matter how strongly anyone feels about Torah, they're working from belief.
> There's just no way around that. Yes, the printed pages exist, and that's
> indisputable fact--but, in the absence of evidence, their origin is a
matter
> of belief.

One would think it was obvious. Indeed, as you were so clearly able to
articulate it, it IS obvious.

And yet I bet this thread goes on for days with people willfully missing the
point.

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 8:04:38 PM8/11/02
to

"Fiona" <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1029078026.3276.0...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> Dan Kimmel wrote in message ...

>
> >
> >Now how do you prove what happened at Sinai? The answer is obvious: you
> >can't.
>
> The fact that you are here today, as a Jew, is proof that Sinai happened.
> Prove me wrong.

No need. You've offered no proof to disprove. You've merely made an
unsupported assertion.

One could just as easily say, the fact that you are here today, as a Jew, is
proof that Mohammed is the messenger of Allah. Prove me wrong.

Because you've offered no proof, there's nothing to argue.

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 8:04:41 PM8/11/02
to

"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
news:3d56a56c...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...

> Faith and belief mean putting your brain into deep freeze and acting
> on an irrational whim or impulse. Yeah, you're damned right I have a
> problem with that. If you want to go with credo, quia absurdum,
> you're in the wrong religion.

Ah, I see what the problem is now. You have no idea what faith and belief
mean in this context.

When you daven, do you believe or "know" that God is listening? How do you
"know?" Does He answer you directly and explicitly? Do you "know" because
He "hears all prayers?" How do you know that God doesn't think, "Oy, it's
that Lisa again. Let me tune that out and study some Talmud instead?" (And
how do you know whether God studies Talmud or not? The Midrash even has God
wearing tefillin.)

Bottom line: you believe, you don't know.

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 8:04:44 PM8/11/02
to

"Julie" <txj...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3D56C936...@austin.rr.com...

> Lisa wrote:
> > All we need is enough evidence for it to be a rational thing to be
> > convinced of. Which is not the same thing as "believing" just because
> > it feels right. Which is no knowledge at all.
>
> There have been billions of Christians who'd claim they had that
> same level of knowledge. Ditto for Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus,
> etc. Many of those people have been on pilgrimages, seen all the
> sights in all the "holy places", prayed or whatever for their
> god to give them things, etc.
>
> For all you really know, Judaism is a system of self-reinforcing
> self-delusion. "My mother was Jewish four thousand years ago and
> therefore it's all true," when for all you know your mother four
> thousand years ago was worshipping three headed monsters who eat
> villages whole.
>
> You're mocking other people's religious beliefs (which is always a
> fun sport) while failing to comprehend that the arguments you use
> are the same as the ones they use to mock you.

Ding, ding, ding!!! We have a winner.

Her answer (I'm guessing here, but it's what the true believers ALWAYS say)
will be that her beliefs are based on absolute truth whereas those who
disagree (i.e., believers of other religions) are delusional or living on
lies.

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 8:04:46 PM8/11/02
to

"Talqcom" <tal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020811133440...@mb-mk.aol.com...

> >Subject: Re: Belief vs. Conviction: A Primer
> >From: "Dan Kimmel" dan.k...@worldnet.att.net
> >Date: 8/11/2002 9:50 AM Eastern Standard Time

>
> >You've leapt to the wrong conclusion.
>
> Which would be? Is there only one conclusion.

>
> > The Gettysburgh Address isn't a
> >"repeatable experiment" either, yet no one questions the historicity of
its
> >deliverance.
>
> So? If correct, you have just disproved your own two valued system.

I don't have a "two valued system." That was part of your wrong conclusion.

>
> >And you're playing word games. If you claim it is not belief but truth,
but
> >can only offer your belief as proof, you're making my case for me.
> >
>
> I have no interest in making any case for you. Believe me. Or truth me.
Or
> whatever.
>
> I am articulating the defect in your two valued system. I may be wrong
and yes
> playing word games. You may be wrong and not understanding what my words
> denote in reality. How would one know? A matter of truth? Or belief?

You are articulating the defecting in your strawman, not in any thing that
*I* believe.


> >"Collective memory" is not proof.
>
> Maybe. Depends on one's notions of proof, and whose memory. I agree, not
> proof in a repeatable experimental way.
>
> I began saying that certain true things cannot be proved. I reject the
> identity of "provable" and "true."

But if it isn't provable, you shouldn't be surprised when others question
whether it is true.

>
> >One need
> >only read the Tanakh to know that your "collective memory" failed even in
> >ancient times among the Israelites.
>
> I do not see this point. Reading the tanakh where, and in particular what
> sections proves what about the failure of collective memory to do what
exactly?
> Failure to establish that the Tora recounts actual events? How so?

No, failure of your hypothetical "collective memory" -- much closer in time
to the events at Sinai -- to prevent the Israelites from going after false
gods. If the people who *heard God* at Sinai or those who lived in the time
of prophecy decided that they could get a better deal by rejecting God, why
should people today unthinkingly accept your "collective memory?"


> >Centuries ago everyone "knew" the world
> >was flat. And that the Earth was the center of the universe. Half a
> >century ago Christians "knew" that the Jews killed their deity.
>
> All examples not dependent upon a collective memory of a collective event.

Many Christians would disagree about the latter, but that's besides the
point. You're now claiming that some collective memory is faulty. How is
the individual to know which is which?

>
> >I see the failure to even understand the discussion as the effect of
closing
> >one's mind, certain that one's beliefs must be true.
>

> Beacause you have a bias, and are ignorant.

On the contrary, I am open minded and far from ignorant. That's why your
attempt to shut down the discussion has failed.


> I suspect you would say the same thing to Wittgenstein. Fortunately I can
read
> Wittgenstein and Barthes and the gamut of quantum physicists and the
genetic
> epistemologists, and I find people who do not use the same hackneyed
argument
> about closed minds etc.
>
> You know nothing whatsoever about me. Nothing about whether I closed
opened or
> investigated anything about my mind and my views. You only know that *for
you*
> what I say is so absurd it can only be a the result of religous closed
> mindedness.
>
> Perhaps my religion is still centuries ahead of your evolved views on
> epistemology.

You make continued bizarre false claims about me and then claim that my flaw
is attributed a false argument to you.
Do you even know what you point you are trying to make?

> >As for your flawed analogy, one can do a spectrographic analysis so that
> >even if one can not "see" blue, one can measure that it reflects light in
> >that range of the spectrum.
>

> But before spectography was avalable, one could not. Blue was still blue,
yet
> the issue unprovable. The point is there are *always* scientific *facts*
> which at some point are not demonstrable.
>
> What exactly do you think Campbell means when he says "there is no
immaculate
> perception"? Is he laboring under a closed mindedness as well, or are
you?

My collective memory doesn't include this, so -- using your logic -- it
isn't so.

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 8:04:48 PM8/11/02
to

"J. J. Levin" <fin...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3D5696FF...@worldnet.att.net...
> Lisa brought forth a long and wonderfully written treatise
> about how religion is about knowledge and not belief.
> More power to her for being able to type so well (and for
> so long). But it doesn't really prove anything except

> that a good lawyer will "prove" that the ham sandwich
> committed the murder. It still comes down to belief.

<gasp!> The ham sandwich!?

And I was convinced that the butter did it.

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 8:16:17 PM8/11/02
to

"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
news:3d56ba85...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...

> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 19:16:30 +0000 (UTC), "Fiona"
> <fi...@intxtdoc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >Talqcom wrote in message <20020811134709...@mb-mk.aol.com>...
> >>>Subject: Re: Belief vs. Conviction: A Primer
> >>>From: "J. J. Levin" fin...@worldnet.att.net
> >>>Date: 8/11/2002 12:54 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >>
> >>>But it doesn't really prove anything except
> >>>that a good lawyer will "prove" that the ham sandwich
> >>>committed the murder. It still comes down to belief.
> >>
> >>That fine example of typing proves that if Barthes and Wittgenstien and
> >>Campbell are on to something, you have missed it completely. If you did
> >not at
> >>some point wholly miss it, you have reverted to the binarism
characteristic
> >of
> >>the pre modern age.
> >>
> >>It all comes down to epistemology.
> >
> >Mah?
>
> The branch of philosophy dealing with how we think.

Which brings to mind a line from "Annie Hall" about "mental masturbation."

"Don't knock masturbation. At least it's sex with someone I love."

(With apologies to the children in the room.)

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 8:16:23 PM8/11/02
to

"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
news:3d56a2d6...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...

> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 11:50:47 +0000 (UTC), tal...@aol.com (Talqcom)
> wrote:
>
> >>Subject: Re: Belief vs. Conviction: A Primer
> >>From: "Dan Kimmel" dan.k...@worldnet.att.net
> >>Date: 8/11/2002 7:07 AM Eastern Standard Time

> >
> >>Stop right there. What *evidence* is there for this?
> >
> >As a repeatable experiment, none. But the Tora is not a high school
science
> >project, and we are under no duty to prove anything to you.

> >
> >> You don't "know"
> >>this. You "believe" it. It is not objective, verifiable fact, it is
> >>belief.
> >
> >You have an absolute two valued orientation. This of course was evident
to me
> >in the all/nothing at all manner you see the school voucher issue.
> >
> >To you there may be only crap or gold. Absolute immediate and visual
> >knowledge, or "belief."
>
> Right. Mathematical proof can't ever be brought for 99% percent of
> the things that we accept as premises in our lives. Dan isn't capable
> of proving, for example, that the reaction that fuels the sun is
> fusion. He can't prove that the moon has about 1/6 the gravitational
> pull of the Earth. But he wouldn't label those as "beliefs" because
> they conform to his world view.

No, because there are people who *can* prove such things. It's simply a
matter of having the tools to understand the science.

But the wisest tzaddik on the planet today can't prove what happen at Sinai.
He can only take it on faith.


>
> >Obviously to me and to the classical Jews, there is something in between.


> >
> >>I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying, "Where's the proof?"
> >

> >Jewish collective memory. At some point one can be so assimilated they
can no
> >longer access this. At this point it appears there is zero, and proof is
> >required.
>
> And I don't think Ray means this in a Jungian sense, though I could be

> mistaken. I wouldn't mean that, at least. When you're part of a


> culture in which facts have been passed down from teacher to student

> over and over, with x1,000,000 redunancy, for millenia, it's somewhere
> between humorous and tragic to hear someone who has cut himself off
> from that, stuck his fingers in his ears and gone "La la la la I can't
> hear you la la la la" asking for proof.

The world is flat dammit. All my teachers said so, and all their teachers
said so, and my grandfather said that that's what he learned in school from
teachers who had learned it from their teachers..

Mere repetition is not proof. Indeed, the Tanakh gives plenty of examples
of the faithlessness of our ancestors, who were much closer in time to the
events in question.


> >>And answering, "The Torah says so" is simply circular reasoning since it
is
> >>the objective truth of the Torah (as opposed to belief that it is true)
that
> >>is being questioned in the first place.
> >
> >Or it is an expression of self evidence, which one either has to perceive
or
> >they do not. Ten sighted man cannot prove that they can see to a blind
world.
> >"Prove that there is blue" "Prove that this is blue" they will say. You
> >cannot prove that something is blue.
> >
> >I see the request for reasoned proof as the effect of assimilation.
>
> Amen.

Translation: "I take this on faith. I require no proof."

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 8:16:27 PM8/11/02
to

"Julie" <txj...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3D568125...@austin.rr.com...

> Dan Kimmel wrote:
> >
> > "James Kahn" <ka...@nospam.panix.com> wrote in message
> > news:aj5ndn$s74$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> > > How do you "prove" anything? How do you know that the men really
> > > walked on the moon? There are people who believe the whole thing
> > > was staged. How do you know the holocaust really happened? Now
> > > consider how one could "prove" that something happened 3,000 years
> > > ago? At some point a demand for "proof" is just a rhetorical device
> > > equivalent to "I don't want to think about this any further."
> >
> > Now that's a truly bizarre response. In fact, it's equivalent to I *do*
> > want to think about it and object to attempts to foreclose thought by
> > saying, "It's true. We know it. End of discussion."
> >
> > And your examples fail because of scientific, documentary, and
eyewitness
> > evidence proving that both events happened.
>
> No, they don't fail. Sooner or later everyone who has that kind of
> direct experience will be dead.
>
> > Now how do you prove what happened at Sinai? The answer is obvious: you
> > can't. Therefore we accept the Torah on faith and belief, not because
we
> > "know" it is demonstrably true.
>
> For the same reason that sooner or later people will say "Prove that
> we landed on the moon!" (some already do, but that's beside the
> point). Eventually everyone who was there died, and the people they
> told their first-hand accounts died, and the people who heard second-
> hand died, and so on.

And all the photographs and video recordings will be erased and all the
lunar samples will be destroyed and...

Oh.

Never mind.

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 8:16:29 PM8/11/02
to

"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
news:3d56a5ac...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...

> What kind of utter imbeciles do you think our ancestors were? What
> kind of misplaced arrogance and superiority to you have to adopt to
> imagine that they could have all been fooled into agreeing that there
> was a revelation at Sinai at which we were given the Torah?

And your proof that our ancestors believed this, say, 2500-3000 years ago?

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 8:16:32 PM8/11/02
to

"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
news:3d56a293...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...

No, because you were so deficient in logic that you leaped over the lack of
support for your assertions here and hurried on to other matters.

And I can easily prove this to anyone who wants to challenge my belief:
simply look at how Lisa fails to make her case in all the posts in this
thread subsequent to her original one.

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 8:16:34 PM8/11/02
to

"Julie" <txj...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3D56B2E3...@austin.rr.com...

> Lisa wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 11:50:47 +0000 (UTC), tal...@aol.com (Talqcom)
> > wrote:
> > >Jewish collective memory. At some point one can be so assimilated they
can no
> > >longer access this. At this point it appears there is zero, and proof
is
> > >required.
> >
> > And I don't think Ray means this in a Jungian sense, though I could be
> > mistaken. I wouldn't mean that, at least. When you're part of a
> > culture in which facts have been passed down from teacher to student
> > over and over, with x1,000,000 redunancy, for millenia, it's somewhere
> > between humorous and tragic to hear someone who has cut himself off
> > from that, stuck his fingers in his ears and gone "La la la la I can't
> > hear you la la la la" asking for proof.
>
> Christianity makes the EXACT SAME CLAIM. Christianity is now
> nearly two millenia old. Christians really do believe that
> Jebus was G-d, died, rose from the dead, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
> Islam isn't quite that old yet, but they too hold that absolute
> certainty of belief.

>
> Any time the answer is "collective memory" you've got to address
> the issue of how many hundreds of millions of Christians out there
> also have a collective memory.
>
> It's a shame you (probably) didn't spend more time actually
> =talking= to Christians or Moslems because then you'd grasp
> the idiocy of "we've believed this for a really long time, so
> therefore it's true".

To which the inevitable answer will be: the difference is that what WE
believe is true.

Micha Berger

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 8:18:03 PM8/11/02
to
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 00:04:33 +0000 (UTC), Dan Kimmel <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: And the bottom line is, therefore, we can believe, but we can't know for

: certain. We can believe and act AS IF we know, but the truth is -- in the
: end -- it is a matter of faith and belief and NOT certain knowledge.

I'm arguing that we can know as certain as we know the color of our
furniture. The difference is, color is a much simpler topic, and therefore
it's far more likely to different observers will have the same experience.

But that only shakes my ability to prove it to others, for whom I can't
set up the identical experience. It doesn't shake my ability to prove it
to myself.

-mi

--
Micha Berger "The most prevalent illness of our generation is
mi...@aishdas.org excessive anxiety.... Emunah decreases anxiety:
http://www.aishdas.org 'The Almighty is my source of salvation; I will
Fax: (413) 403-9905 trust and not be afraid.'" (Isa 12) -Shalhevesya

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 8:21:15 PM8/11/02
to

"Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
news:aj6uu3$18l4cl$2...@ID-113975.news.dfncis.de...

> On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 00:04:33 +0000 (UTC), Dan Kimmel
<dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> : And the bottom line is, therefore, we can believe, but we can't know for
> : certain. We can believe and act AS IF we know, but the truth is -- in
the
> : end -- it is a matter of faith and belief and NOT certain knowledge.
>
> I'm arguing that we can know as certain as we know the color of our
> furniture. The difference is, color is a much simpler topic, and therefore
> it's far more likely to different observers will have the same experience.
>
> But that only shakes my ability to prove it to others, for whom I can't
> set up the identical experience. It doesn't shake my ability to prove it
> to myself.

Then you truly believe.

Marc Andrews

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 8:39:10 PM8/11/02
to

"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
news:3d56a836...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
> On Sun, 11 Aug 2002 16:58:23 +0000 (UTC), Joel Shurkin <jo...@nasw.org>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <slrnalcuig....@amanda.dorsai.org>, Sheldon
> >Ackerman <acke...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org>, John Likakis
wrote:

> >>
> >> >
> >> >Jim, you and Talqcom are drifting in the wrong direction here. This
isn't
> >> >about trying to prove or disprove the validity of Torah--it's about
the
> >> >distinction between believing and knowing.
> >> >
> >> >In that vein, Dan is absolutely correct. Looked at from a completely
> >> >disconnected and dispassionate POV, Judaism is just like the rest of
the
> >> >Western religions: They've got a book (actually, several books) and
claim
> >> >those books to be the word of G-d. Just like the Xians, just like the
> >> >Muslims.
> >>
> >> As I asked in another message , do you know who your father is or was,
or do
> >> you only believe that you know?

> >
> >What if I had a DNA test and the DNA test said my father was my father?
>
> DNA testing is statistical at best.

It's good enough to send people to jail for life in this country at least
(UK), and also good enough to provide conclusive proof in countless
paternity cases.

Eliyahu

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 9:12:43 PM8/11/02
to

"Marc Andrews" <nom...@me.pls> wrote in message
news:aj6nek$3eh$1...@venus.btinternet.com...

Not to mention the rapidly growning number of prisoners who've been proven
innocent by DNA after years or decades in prison, or even on death row.

Eliyahu

Sheldon Ackerman

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 10:26:43 PM8/11/02
to
In article <3d56a7d3...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>, Lisa wrote:

>
>"It's a wise child knows his father"
>
>Lisa

That was the point. We should know Hashem in the same manner as a child
knows who is father is!

Sheldon Ackerman

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 10:29:26 PM8/11/02
to
In article <110820021259265774%jo...@nasw.org>, Joel Shurkin wrote:

>>
>> As I asked in another message , do you know who your father is or was, or do
>> you only believe that you know?
>

>What if I had a DNA test and the DNA test said my father was my father?
>

I think that a DNA test will only give you odds and probability but will
never be conclusive.

Sheldon Ackerman

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 10:32:35 PM8/11/02
to
In article <3d56a836...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>, Lisa wrote:

>>>
>>> As I asked in another message , do you know who your father is or was, or do
>>> you only believe that you know?
>>
>>What if I had a DNA test and the DNA test said my father was my father?
>

>DNA testing is statistical at best.
>

>Lisa

That was the point the Rav was trying to make. Just as we know who our
father is, we know HaShem and we know that the Torah is true. Once we have
to start questioning it is because there is something wrong with us.

Sheldon Ackerman

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 10:33:45 PM8/11/02
to
In article <ule2v7e...@corp.supernews.com>, Eliyahu wrote:

>
>Not to mention the rapidly growning number of prisoners who've been proven
>innocent by DNA after years or decades in prison, or even on death row.
>
>Eliyahu

the DNA can probably tell you that there is no match so that a person can go
free. However it can not give you a perfect match. It can only give you the
probability of a match.

Sheldon Ackerman

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 10:37:57 PM8/11/02
to
In article <pgpmoose.2002...@scjm.nj.org>, John Likakis wrote:

>
>Well, in my particular case, it's a scientifically verified fact.
>Yep--real-live documentation from impartial observers. So that kind of moots
>your point, I guess.
>
>John Likakis

What? How do you know that the observers are impartial????
I know of at least once case where the son found out a few days before his
bar mitzvah that he was adopted?
Your real-live documentation could have been doctored. You really have no
proof except for the fact that you want to believe and you have no reason
not to believe.

Believing in the Torah is somewhat different. Belief in the Torah would
require many of us to change our life style so we don't really want to
believe. That is the key difference.

Talqcom

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 10:45:59 PM8/11/02
to
>Subject: Re: Belief vs. Conviction: A Primer
>From: "Dan Kimmel" dan.k...@worldnet.att.net
>Date: 8/11/2002 8:04 PM Eastern Standard Time

>But if it isn't provable, you shouldn't be surprised when others question
>whether it is true.

Because you have a two valued orientation, I presume. Or your "others" do. If
you or they do not, why is nonprovability (according to your defined notion of
proof, which itself is not at all universal or objective) the basis of a
question of veracity. You *say* you are not two valued, but your implicit
assumptions belie that.

>No, failure of your hypothetical "collective memory" -- much closer in time
>to the events at Sinai -- to prevent the Israelites from going after false
>gods.

That is irrelevant. I did not say -- nor did they -- that the existence of
Sinai removes choice. Do you imagine they were two valued ?? Was it the God of
Israel or Ba'al? Actually it was more like both simultaneously.

The fact that someone violated the covenant means it never existed, or they
believed it never existed? This is a real reach.

> If the people who *heard God* at Sinai or those who lived in the time
>of prophecy decided that they could get a better deal by rejecting God, why
>should people today unthinkingly accept your "collective memory?"

"Get a better deal"? You are projecting all over the place. Now you know
their motives in worshpping local deities. How do you know this. You cannot
infer a million pieces of information from reading in translation some 3000
years after the fact. At least I do not buy such a plan.

>You're now claiming that some collective memory is faulty.

Not necessarily. I am saying collective memory can be claimed where none
existed. Most likely when the collective memory of many is really of the
events witnessed by ony a few.

>On the contrary, I am open minded and far from ignorant. That's why your
>attempt to shut down the discussion has failed.

Stop telling me what I am doing. Your perception of what I am doing is very
flawed. I consider anyone with a two valued orientation ignorant. You may not
agree.

>You make continued bizarre false claims about me and then claim that my flaw
>is attributed a false argument to you.

The record speaks for itself.

>Do you even know what you point you are trying to make?
>

No. You win. I am a blithering idiot. But at least I am not two-valued, and
at least I do not assume what is beyond my ken and experience is ipso facto
impossible.

>My collective memory doesn't include this, so -- using your logic -- it
>isn't so.

Precisely why I find you ignorant. Things may exist which are beyond your ken.

I asked you to try and construct -- without resort to calling him "closed
minded" or insinuating that he is "blinded by his beliefs" --i.e., without
delegitimizing him as the "other" or an untermensch -- what could he possibly
be referring to.

You cannot even consider the proposition, you resort to schoolyard rhetoric and
then call it my logic. You simply do not understand what I am trying to say.
Let's leave it there. Call me more names, delegitimize me, accuse me of being
a medieval fundamentalist. Go on don't be shy.

Ray

Talqcom

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 10:46:53 PM8/11/02
to
>Subject: Re: Belief vs. Conviction: A Primer
>From: "Dan Kimmel" dan.k...@worldnet.att.net
>Date: 8/11/2002 8:16 PM Eastern Standard Time

>And your proof that our ancestors believed this, say, 2500-3000 years ago?

Same proof that your last name is Kimmel.

Ray

Talqcom

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 10:55:54 PM8/11/02
to
>Subject: Re: Belief vs. Conviction: A Primer
>From: "Dan Kimmel" dan.k...@worldnet.att.net
>Date: 8/11/2002 8:04 PM Eastern Standard Time

>And the bottom line is, therefore, we can believe, but we can't know for
>certain.

No. The bottom line is you just cannot get that others see something more sure
than mere belief where you do not, and much closer to what you call a proven
fact.

>We can believe and act AS IF we know, but the truth is -- in the
>end -- it is a matter of faith and belief and NOT certain knowledge.

You keep offering only two opposite poles as the only possibilities. You keep
repeating "if it is not one it hasto be the other." This is rather unmodern.

Ray

Talqcom

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 11:50:13 PM8/11/02
to
>Subject: Re: Belief vs. Conviction: A Primer
>From: "Dan Kimmel" dan.k...@worldnet.att.net
>Date: 8/11/2002 8:04 PM Eastern Standard Time

>Everyone here who thinks there's any reality to Jungian collective memory,
>raise their hands.
>

What you know the *real* real real truth, and only you?

Seventeen Jungian analysts just raised their hands. Now what? Oh, BTW,
they're all democrats, their grandparents were Jewish idealists and socialists,
and they hate George Bush.

Now you've got a real problem. They look so *normal* !

Ray

James Kahn

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 11:55:04 PM8/11/02
to


>"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message
>news:3d56a2d6...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...

>> Right. Mathematical proof can't ever be brought for 99% percent of
>> the things that we accept as premises in our lives. Dan isn't capable
>> of proving, for example, that the reaction that fuels the sun is
>> fusion. He can't prove that the moon has about 1/6 the gravitational
>> pull of the Earth. But he wouldn't label those as "beliefs" because
>> they conform to his world view.

>No, because there are people who *can* prove such things. It's simply a
>matter of having the tools to understand the science.

>But the wisest tzaddik on the planet today can't prove what happen at Sinai.
>He can only take it on faith.

This is an incorrect inference, that inability to prove something implies
that it has to be a matter of faith. Kurt Godel in the early 1930s proved
that there are TRUE propositions in mathematics for which there is
no proof. Does that mean that they are a matter of faith? No, they
are KNOWN to be true, but can't be proven so. And if it's true
in the relatively orderly and abstract world of mathematics, all the
more so in our messy real world. There are lots of propositions I
know to be true but I have no hope of proving. And I suspect that is
true for you as well, if you were honest with yourself.

--
Jim
New York, NY
(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
http://www.panix.com/~kahn

James Kahn

unread,
Aug 11, 2002, 11:57:21 PM8/11/02
to

>"Julie" <txj...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:3D568125...@austin.rr.com...
>>

>> For the same reason that sooner or later people will say "Prove that
>> we landed on the moon!" (some already do, but that's beside the
>> point). Eventually everyone who was there died, and the people they
>> told their first-hand accounts died, and the people who heard second-
>> hand died, and so on.

>And all the photographs and video recordings will be erased and all the
>lunar samples will be destroyed and...

>Oh.

>Never mind.

Really? And of course you can provide me with proof that these photographs
and videos were not made on some set in Hollywood, and that the lunar
samples actually came from the moon. Please tell me how you would
do so.

mos...@mm.huji.ac.il

unread,
Aug 12, 2002, 2:37:18 AM8/12/02
to
"Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> "Talqcom" <tal...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> >From: Joel Shurkin jo...@nasw.org
>>
>> >And there is nothing wrong with faith.
>>
>> Maybe, but faith is not the issue. You say it is, maybe. I say there is
>> more than the either/or. That is what generates the consternation here.
>>
>> >I'm astonished at how troubled
>> >some people on this list have with faith or belief. Could there be,
>> >deep down in side, just a little smidgeon of doubt?
>>
>> The other shoe, fits equally as well, as follows: why is it so
>> necessary to demonstrate the undemonstrability of the events
>> described by the Tora because one finds no "objective evidence"?
>>
>> Why is it so important to stomp out the value of collective memory (
> which,
>> BTW, all of Jungian depth psychology is built upon) when it deals with
> Judaism?
>>
>> Is it a smidgeon of a need to convince one's self?

>
> Everyone here who thinks there's any reality to Jungian collective
> memory, raise their hands.

I can't raise my hand. If I did, I couldn't type. Also, I don't _know_
what Jungian collective memory _is_. But I do know that my niece was
very careful to _never_ tell her children any stories about monsters,
yet they were convinced there were monsters under their bed.

Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
May Eliyahu Chayim ben Sarah Henna (Eliot Shimoff) have a refuah Shlaima.
Ksiva v'CHasima Tova.

mos...@mm.huji.ac.il

unread,
Aug 12, 2002, 2:39:21 AM8/12/02
to
"Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
>> Dan Kimmel <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>> : You've leapt to the wrong conclusion. The Gettysburgh Address isn't a

>> : "repeatable experiment" either, yet no one questions the historicity of
>> : its deliverance.
>>
>> Give 'em three millenia, then talk.
>>
>> There is also strong emotional reason to deny a religious claim that
>> doesn't hold for the Gettysburgh Address.
>>
>> : I see the failure to even understand the discussion as the effect of

> closing
>> : one's mind, certain that one's beliefs must be true.
>>
>> And I see the failure on the other side: as being one of not having the
>> audacity to be sure of things one can't prove to determined skeptics.
>>
>> : As for your flawed analogy, one can do a spectrographic analysis so that

>> : even if one can not "see" blue, one can measure that it reflects light
> in
>> : that range of the spectrum.
>>
>> Actually, not every blue object that appears identically to the view
>> reflects the same frequencies. Any combination of frequencies that causes
>> the red, green and blue cones in the viewer's retina, and provide the same
>> brightness reaction to the rod to fire identically will look the same.
>> Color is more biology than physics.
>>
>> And color isn't only in an object's relationship to the viewer. It's
>> also in the lighting, the viewer's psychological state, etc...
>>
>> But in any case, spectra are empirical. If you require that all of
>> your conclusions be based on empirical data, you've already denied
>> the truth of religion of any sort.
>>
>> Monotheism isn't empirically provable, neither is atheism, nor
>> polytheism... But you can prove by tautology that of them must be True.

>
> And the bottom line is, therefore, we can believe, but we can't know for
> certain. We can believe and act AS IF we know, but the truth is -- in the

> end -- it is a matter of faith and belief and NOT certain knowledge.

So? Is this _all_ you want to demonstrate? Or is it just the first step?

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Aug 12, 2002, 7:42:03 AM8/12/02
to

"Talqcom" <tal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020811224709...@mb-cr.aol.com...

> >Subject: Re: Belief vs. Conviction: A Primer
> >From: "Dan Kimmel" dan.k...@worldnet.att.net
> >Date: 8/11/2002 8:04 PM Eastern Standard Time
>
> >But if it isn't provable, you shouldn't be surprised when others question
> >whether it is true.
>
> Because you have a two valued orientation, I presume. Or your "others"
do. If
> you or they do not, why is nonprovability (according to your defined
notion of
> proof, which itself is not at all universal or objective) the basis of a
> question of veracity. You *say* you are not two valued, but your implicit
> assumptions belie that.

No, something can be without proof and yet true. But it can not be
demonstrated to be true. If the answer is that it is true because we have
always believed it to be so, then we are stuck with a flat Earth at the
center of the universe.


> >No, failure of your hypothetical "collective memory" -- much closer in
time
> >to the events at Sinai -- to prevent the Israelites from going after
false
> >gods.
>
> That is irrelevant. I did not say -- nor did they -- that the existence
of
> Sinai removes choice. Do you imagine they were two valued ?? Was it the
God of
> Israel or Ba'al? Actually it was more like both simultaneously.

Can we dispense with the pseudo-academic jargon? No one really cares about
this "two-valued" nonsense you're trying to foist on us.

In fact, you've completely sidestepped the issue by declaring it irrelevant
rather than addressing the point. The argument is that the Torah is true
and requires no proof and we "know" it to be true because of our "collective
memory." And yet if everyone truly *knew* that to be so, and *knew* that it
was their direct and relatively recent ancestors who had been so addressed,
why would they go out of their way to violate the prohibition against
idolatry, which is one of the clearest and most unambiguous themes in the
Torah? Clearly, they did NOT "know" what you're claiming they knew. Either
out of ignorance or skepticism -- or more likely their own *beliefs* -- they
acted accordingly.

> The fact that someone violated the covenant means it never existed, or
they
> believed it never existed? This is a real reach.

Listen to your own argument. Thousands of years later we should accept
something as true without proof and without question because of "collective
memory" but the people mere centuries away from the event -- or even
closer -- clearly did not accept it as truth. And the text you argue is
unarguable truth TELLS us this.

The point is not the truth or non-truth of the Torah. It is of the failure
of "collective memory" to be offered as "proof."


> > If the people who *heard God* at Sinai or those who lived in the time
> >of prophecy decided that they could get a better deal by rejecting God,
why
> >should people today unthinkingly accept your "collective memory?"
>
> "Get a better deal"? You are projecting all over the place. Now you know
> their motives in worshpping local deities. How do you know this. You
cannot
> infer a million pieces of information from reading in translation some
3000
> years after the fact. At least I do not buy such a plan.

You're rambling. Try to stay focused on the point that there simply is no
way to "prove" that the Torah is true, and that it is a matter of faith, not
fact, and not your deeply flawed "collective memory."


> >You're now claiming that some collective memory is faulty.
>
> Not necessarily. I am saying collective memory can be claimed where none
> existed. Most likely when the collective memory of many is really of the
> events witnessed by ony a few.

Or when you are insisting something is factual in the absence of proof and
are trying to deny that it is really a matter of faith.


> >On the contrary, I am open minded and far from ignorant. That's why your
> >attempt to shut down the discussion has failed.
>
> Stop telling me what I am doing. Your perception of what I am doing is
very
> flawed. I consider anyone with a two valued orientation ignorant. You
may not
> agree.

Now you're merely projecting your own flaws onto others.


> >You make continued bizarre false claims about me and then claim that my
flaw
> >is attributed a false argument to you.
>
> The record speaks for itself.

Indeed it does.


> >Do you even know what you point you are trying to make?
> >
>
> No. You win. I am a blithering idiot. But at least I am not two-valued,
and
> at least I do not assume what is beyond my ken and experience is ipso
facto
> impossible.

No one was doing that here. Thanks for proving my point that you had no
idea what was being discussed.

> >My collective memory doesn't include this, so -- using your logic -- it
> >isn't so.
>
> Precisely why I find you ignorant. Things may exist which are beyond your
ken.

Proof positive that you are unable to make your case. No one is arguing
that something doesn't exist because it can't be proven.

And when you are reduced to insults, you merely demonstrate your own
threadbare intellect.


> I asked you to try and construct -- without resort to calling him "closed
> minded" or insinuating that he is "blinded by his beliefs" --i.e., without
> delegitimizing him as the "other" or an untermensch -- what could he
possibly
> be referring to.
>
> You cannot even consider the proposition, you resort to schoolyard
rhetoric and
> then call it my logic. You simply do not understand what I am trying to
say.
> Let's leave it there. Call me more names, delegitimize me, accuse me of
being
> a medieval fundamentalist. Go on don't be shy.

Who is this strawman you are fighting with, and why can't you address what
is actually being posted?

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Aug 12, 2002, 7:42:12 AM8/12/02
to

"James Kahn" <ka...@nospam.panix.com> wrote in message
news:aj7blk$moo$1...@reader2.panix.com...

I profess no knowledge of higher mathematics. I do recall high school
geometry where there were theorems that had to be proven and postulates --
which were true statements that did not have to be proven. They were taken
as a given.

In other words, they were taken on faith. And they were true.

A few people (notably Ray and Lisa) seem to have this false notion that if
something is taken on faith it can't be true, and therefore even in the
absence of proof they must insist that something is known to be true and
factual and that anyone who suggests that faith or belief is at work is an
insufficiently rigorous Jew. That is sheer stuff and nonsense.

No one is arguing that unprovable things can't be true. But they are
unprovable. And therefore they are taken on faith. Or as a "postulate."
Or "first principles." Or the Tanakh. Just don't claim that they are
*known* to be true.

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Aug 12, 2002, 7:42:21 AM8/12/02
to

<mos...@mm.huji.ac.il> wrote in message
news:2002Aug1...@mm.huji.ac.il...

> "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> > "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote in message
> >> Monotheism isn't empirically provable, neither is atheism, nor
> >> polytheism... But you can prove by tautology that of them must be True.
> >
> > And the bottom line is, therefore, we can believe, but we can't know for
> > certain. We can believe and act AS IF we know, but the truth is -- in
the
> > end -- it is a matter of faith and belief and NOT certain knowledge.
>
> So? Is this _all_ you want to demonstrate? Or is it just the first step?
>

Believe it or not, that was my point. That we are acting on belief and not
certainty.

After all, if the great tzaddiks of the Houses of Hillel and Shammai could
disagree about what God requires, how could anyone claim to know with
certainty?

To me, this is just a common sense observation, not an attempt to -- God
forbid -- destroy Judaism.

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Aug 12, 2002, 7:42:33 AM8/12/02
to

"Talqcom" <tal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020811224806...@mb-cr.aol.com...

Really? You have reams of documentation and video? Let's see it.

Dan Kimmel

unread,
Aug 12, 2002, 7:43:49 AM8/12/02
to

"James Kahn" <ka...@nospam.panix.com> wrote in message
news:aj7bpn$moo$2...@reader2.panix.com...

> In <E8D59.8578$Ep6.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> "Dan Kimmel"
<dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
> >"Julie" <txj...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> >news:3D568125...@austin.rr.com...
> >>
> >> For the same reason that sooner or later people will say "Prove that
> >> we landed on the moon!" (some already do, but that's beside the
> >> point). Eventually everyone who was there died, and the people they
> >> told their first-hand accounts died, and the people who heard second-
> >> hand died, and so on.
>
> >And all the photographs and video recordings will be erased and all the
> >lunar samples will be destroyed and...
>
> >Oh.
>
> >Never mind.
>
> Really? And of course you can provide me with proof that these
photographs
> and videos were not made on some set in Hollywood, and that the lunar
> samples actually came from the moon. Please tell me how you would
> do so.

If you are delusionally paranoid, no proof would suffice. But then we're in
Philip K. Dick land where there is nothing BUT subjective reality.

If you want to argue that this was all done a movie set, and that millions
were spent on an elaborate hoax to fake not only the television pictures,
but the launches, the telemetry, the lunar samples and their analysis, and
keeping the hundreds -- and perhaps thousands -- of people who would have
known about this hoax sworn to secrecy for more than three decades, then the
burden of proof is on YOU. Occam's Razor suggests that it is the moon
landing and not the Hollywood conspiracy theory that makes the most sense.

Jonathan J. Baker

unread,
Aug 12, 2002, 8:43:46 AM8/12/02
to
In <ka...@nospam.panix.com (James Kahn) writes:

>In <Ket> "Dan Kimmel" <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>"Lisa" <li...@starways.net> wrote in message

>>> Torah is not about belief. If religions are based on belief, then


>>> Judaism is not a religion. The Torah is about knowledge.
>>> Information. The reason it was revealed in front of about 3 million
>>> men, women and children was so that people wouldn't need to rely on
>>> belief. Other religions have a man receiving a revelation in a cave
>>> all by himself. Or have a dozen individuals witnessing a
>>> resurrection. How convenient.

>>Stop right there. What *evidence* is there for this? You don't "know"
>>this. You "believe" it. It is not objective, verifiable fact, it is
>>belief.

>>I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying, "Where's the proof?"

>How do you "prove" anything? How do you know that the men really
>walked on the moon? There are people who believe the whole thing
>was staged. How do you know the holocaust really happened? Now

Ever see the movie Capricorn One? About a staged Mars landing?
They tried to kill the astronaut-actors to cover it up.

Ultimately we rely on witnesses to say that the Moon landing really
happened. The fact that thousands of people were involved, and that
thousands would have to be involved to make a conspiracy, and that
you really can't protect a secret among that many people.

So too, we have to rely on the 3 million witnesses to the Stand
at Sinai. Because even at periods when the Torah was "lost", such
as before King Josiah, it was accepted by the masses when it was
rediscovered - and you can't fool all of the people all of the
time.

Periods such as the early 1800s, when it was convenient to
claim that the Torah was a fake, because non-observance was
widespread, well, by then it was too late to make up this
"story" that it was all a "conspiracy".

>consider how one could "prove" that something happened 3,000 years
>ago? At some point a demand for "proof" is just a rhetorical device
>equivalent to "I don't want to think about this any further."

One has to wonder, indeed.

--
Jonathan Baker | Misheyatza Tishebov marbim besimcha?
jjb...@panix.com |
Web page: <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker/>

Micha Berger

unread,
Aug 12, 2002, 8:43:45 AM8/12/02
to
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 00:21:15 +0000 (UTC), Dan Kimmel <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
:> But that only shakes my ability to prove it to others, for whom I can't

:> set up the identical experience. It doesn't shake my ability to prove it
:> to myself.

: Then you truly believe.

As I said, I'm not sure enough of the terms to get too caught up in it.

The one term I would object to is "faith". "Faith" carries too many
connotations of a belief that one can't even prove to oneself. Or
even of Tertullian's "I believe /because/ it's absurd."

-mi

--
Micha Berger The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org the heart already reached.
Fax: (413) 403-9905

Jonathan J. Baker

unread,
Aug 12, 2002, 8:48:15 AM8/12/02
to
In <> Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> writes:
> Dan Kimmel <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>: As for your flawed analogy, one can do a spectrographic analysis so that
>: even if one can not "see" blue, one can measure that it reflects light in
>: that range of the spectrum.

>Actually, not every blue object that appears identically to the view
>reflects the same frequencies. Any combination of frequencies that causes
>the red, green and blue cones in the viewer's retina, and provide the same
>brightness reaction to the rod to fire identically will look the same.
>Color is more biology than physics.

>And color isn't only in an object's relationship to the viewer. It's
>also in the lighting, the viewer's psychological state, etc...

Yup. I even see color differently between my two eyes. I look
at, e.g., the patch of green on the spine of RYGB's "The Contemporary
Eruv" (which I keep by the desk, since eruv questions are fairly
common), and it looks paler in my left eye than in my right.

Is my left eye "wrong" about the color?

>But in any case, spectra are empirical. If you require that all of
>your conclusions be based on empirical data, you've already denied
>the truth of religion of any sort.

Indeed, since perceptions of the empirical vary between persons,
or even between eyes - even the empirical is no proof if all you
can trust is the evidence of your senses. Isn't that Humean?

>Monotheism isn't empirically provable, neither is atheism, nor
>polytheism... But you can prove by tautology that of them must be True.

That one of them?
That none of them?
What are you trying to prove?

James Kahn

unread,
Aug 12, 2002, 8:54:08 AM8/12/02
to

>"James Kahn" <ka...@nospam.panix.com> wrote in message
>news:aj7bpn$moo$2...@reader2.panix.com...
>> In <E8D59.8578$Ep6.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> "Dan Kimmel"
><dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>>
>> >"Julie" <txj...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
>> >news:3D568125...@austin.rr.com...
>> >>
>> >> For the same reason that sooner or later people will say "Prove that
>> >> we landed on the moon!" (some already do, but that's beside the
>> >> point). Eventually everyone who was there died, and the people they
>> >> told their first-hand accounts died, and the people who heard second-
>> >> hand died, and so on.
>>
>> >And all the photographs and video recordings will be erased and all the
>> >lunar samples will be destroyed and...
>>
>> >Oh.
>>
>> >Never mind.
>>
>> Really? And of course you can provide me with proof that these
>photographs
>> and videos were not made on some set in Hollywood, and that the lunar
>> samples actually came from the moon. Please tell me how you would
>> do so.

>If you are delusionally paranoid, no proof would suffice. But then we're in
>Philip K. Dick land where there is nothing BUT subjective reality.

Thank you for taking the bait. This is exactly the point I (and I think
Ray and Lisa, though I won't speak for them) was trying to make.

>If you want to argue that this was all done a movie set, and that millions
>were spent on an elaborate hoax to fake not only the television pictures,
>but the launches, the telemetry, the lunar samples and their analysis, and
>keeping the hundreds -- and perhaps thousands -- of people who would have
>known about this hoax sworn to secrecy for more than three decades, then the
>burden of proof is on YOU. Occam's Razor suggests that it is the moon
>landing and not the Hollywood conspiracy theory that makes the most sense.

Now change "hundreds -- and perhaps thousands --" to "millions," change
"decades" to "millenia," and so on. Welcome to the club.

Micha Berger

unread,
Aug 12, 2002, 9:04:29 AM8/12/02
to
On Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:48:15 +0000 (UTC), Jonathan J. Baker <jjb...@panix.com> wrote:
: Indeed, since perceptions of the empirical vary between persons,

: or even between eyes - even the empirical is no proof if all you
: can trust is the evidence of your senses. Isn't that Humean?

It's definitely Empiricism, which Hume largely defined. I don't know
Empiricism well enough to say who first came up with what.

It's also Kantian, to distinguish phenomena (the experience of things)
from noumena (things -- both objects and abstract concepts -- in
themselves). Kant rejects the notion that we can't know anything about
noumena.

:>Monotheism isn't empirically provable, neither is atheism, nor


:>polytheism... But you can prove by tautology that of them must be True.

: That one of them?
: That none of them?
: What are you trying to prove?

Since none make an empirical claim, you can't empirically prove any of
them. If the Empirical agenda worked, we'd have to conclude that all
three are false. And yet one of the three must be True, as the three
cover all your options.

It is loading more messages.
0 new messages