- Joined
- Jan 2, 2012
- Messages
- 11,206
- Reaction score
- 3,271
- Location
- Walking the Underworld
- Website
- www.richardgarfinkle.com
The impetus for this thread came from a discussion I had with a Christian friend of mine arising from the recent Supreme Court decision about gay marriage.
We're both in favor of the decision. It wasn't that sort of a discussion.
But in the process of talking, I came to realize that we had very different attitudes toward the purpose of argument in religion and philosophy.
Background: I was raised Jewish, but am now an atheist.
In Judaism argument can itself be a holy action. There's a quote I can never find the reference for that says that whoever finds a new true interpretation creates a new Heaven. Thus, one of the religious duties is to sit around arguing Biblical interpretation. For a long time this was a duty reserved to learned old men, but recently some branches of Judaism have allowed women and children to get into the act. I was brought up in a household where argument was just what one did.
< Chorus of people I've annoyed on AW>
That explains everything.
< /Chorus of people I've annoyed on AW>
But argument is not a good in and of itself. One has to know what one is talking about. Thus there is a push in Judaism for education and argument. While for some of the Ultra Orthodox the concept of "learned" is restricted to being learned in the Bible and the Talmud, for most Jews it extends into all areas of learning and, of course, arguing.
Now, obviously, argument is not confined to Judaism, but I think that there is a subtle difference in the underlying argument philosophy between Judaic argument and specifically Christian argument and that this difference also manifests in differences in Biblical interpretations and cultural attitudes.
Judaism presumes an ongoing discussion that, for want of a better word, evolves. The assumption is that new interpretations will be made, and are needed as life changes. The argument is an ongoing necessity. It does not end because as long as there are people there will need to be new interpretations.
A lot (not all) of Christian argument seems to seek a final answer, a way to close the book on a subject and be done with it, a Last Judgment as it were.
I think that hidden within this difference in argument views is a difference in views of humanity. Judaism does not, on the whole, have an idea of human perfectibility. Everyone screws up, everyone messes up, and even God's aid will not make people perfect. The Hebrew Bible consists in large part of God sending prophets to chew the people out for their latest mess up and send them back to the right course of action. It's kind of like a long history of bug reports and upgrades on the Humanity App.
Christianity has a concept of human perfectibility. The usual premise is that with God's help, people can become perfect. The Old Testament consists of prefigurings of this eventual perfectibility which comes about in the New Testament.
This is where I think the reading gap between Judaic and Christian interpretations of the books that make up The Hebrew Bible on the one hand and The New Testament on the other comes from.
I don't wish to confine this thread to discussions of these two religions, but I did wish to highlight very different views of the roles of argument and the underlying cultural views behind them in order to lead into a general discussion of the roles of argument in religion and philosophy.
We're both in favor of the decision. It wasn't that sort of a discussion.
But in the process of talking, I came to realize that we had very different attitudes toward the purpose of argument in religion and philosophy.
Background: I was raised Jewish, but am now an atheist.
In Judaism argument can itself be a holy action. There's a quote I can never find the reference for that says that whoever finds a new true interpretation creates a new Heaven. Thus, one of the religious duties is to sit around arguing Biblical interpretation. For a long time this was a duty reserved to learned old men, but recently some branches of Judaism have allowed women and children to get into the act. I was brought up in a household where argument was just what one did.
< Chorus of people I've annoyed on AW>
That explains everything.
< /Chorus of people I've annoyed on AW>
But argument is not a good in and of itself. One has to know what one is talking about. Thus there is a push in Judaism for education and argument. While for some of the Ultra Orthodox the concept of "learned" is restricted to being learned in the Bible and the Talmud, for most Jews it extends into all areas of learning and, of course, arguing.
Now, obviously, argument is not confined to Judaism, but I think that there is a subtle difference in the underlying argument philosophy between Judaic argument and specifically Christian argument and that this difference also manifests in differences in Biblical interpretations and cultural attitudes.
Judaism presumes an ongoing discussion that, for want of a better word, evolves. The assumption is that new interpretations will be made, and are needed as life changes. The argument is an ongoing necessity. It does not end because as long as there are people there will need to be new interpretations.
A lot (not all) of Christian argument seems to seek a final answer, a way to close the book on a subject and be done with it, a Last Judgment as it were.
I think that hidden within this difference in argument views is a difference in views of humanity. Judaism does not, on the whole, have an idea of human perfectibility. Everyone screws up, everyone messes up, and even God's aid will not make people perfect. The Hebrew Bible consists in large part of God sending prophets to chew the people out for their latest mess up and send them back to the right course of action. It's kind of like a long history of bug reports and upgrades on the Humanity App.
Christianity has a concept of human perfectibility. The usual premise is that with God's help, people can become perfect. The Old Testament consists of prefigurings of this eventual perfectibility which comes about in the New Testament.
This is where I think the reading gap between Judaic and Christian interpretations of the books that make up The Hebrew Bible on the one hand and The New Testament on the other comes from.
I don't wish to confine this thread to discussions of these two religions, but I did wish to highlight very different views of the roles of argument and the underlying cultural views behind them in order to lead into a general discussion of the roles of argument in religion and philosophy.