Animal sacrifice; when is it okay?

[godnotgod]

Of course not. Your example exemplifies killing for sustenance. I am speaking in terms of sacrificing animals for religious purpose.

Thank you for clarifying it better than I could, my point being that animal sacrifice for religious purposes is based only on belief, and as such, may be the unnecessary taking of animal life. No one knows whether animal sacrifice has the power it is supposed to have. That makes it's basis ignorance.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

No one knows whether animal sacrifice has the power it is supposed to have. That makes it's basis ignorance.

Ask the Santeria; they're quite certain that it has the power they believe it has. You don't know that it has the power that some claim it does, and so to you it is based in ignorance.

 

[Grandliseur]

I've heard various arguments about this. Many practitioners of African-American religions make use of this. Scriptures from traditional religions seem to approve or appropriate it to the point where new religious movements have used such content to discredit them.

I've heard people say this was okay only if you plan to eat the animal and put the inedible parts to use somehow. I think I can agree with this veiw because destruction should be for beneficial, creative or recreational purposes. Never just for destruction's sake.

If an animal is to die, it must have a purpose. It's only respectful. I feel the same about human deaths. I'm likely to be an organ donor or a donor to science after my death. In fact I would want that to happen if entirely possible.

I've also heard people say it's not okay at all because animals don't deserve to die. I would agree with this except carnivores kill innocent critters all the time. If animals don't deserve death, why is it they kill on their own terms? What makes us better than the other animals?

We somehow think we live in a world of glory when animals are treated like objects in factory settings and the road to death is simply the road of suffering. Animals are just as likely to die from exhaustion and disease in a factory as they are from actual slaughter. And we are better than the starving dwindling wolves whose powerful maws make quick work of an elder rabbit that probably would have become irreversibly sick in the following week? Should the animals resort to plant diets like many humans have consciously decided to partake in?

How do you feel about animal sacrifice? What are your arguments?

Also, I forgot to mention before; supposedly some people claim there is a "right way" to kill for sacrifice (minimal suffering). Why would suffering be important to the ritual? How does suffering of a lack thereof change anything?

Clearing up a misunderstanding some have:
The animals sacrifice in ancient Israel were eaten by the people who owned them and by the priest at the temple where they were sacrificed. They were not just killed and thrown away, or burned. Parts of the animal were forbidden as human food, such as the fat and the blood, this was at times burned or poured out, etc.

 

[David1967]

Your thoughts are not in accordance with the Tanakh. Unlike every other Hebrew tribe, the priests were not given a portion of the land. Their only means of sustenance were from the sacrifices of money, grain, and animals.

Ah.so kinda like televangelists before the TV. God forbid they take off the fancy robes and work for their goods.

 

[godnotgod]

Ask the Santeria; they're quite certain that it has the power they believe it has. You don't know that it has the power that some claim it does, and so to you it is based in ignorance.

It's like voodoo; it's not the ritual that has the power; it's the belief that it does.

Think about what you said: 'they're certain it has the power they believe it has'. Of course! They're certain because they believe it does. Once this is realized, the ritual loses its power.

In the case of the Santeria, animal sacrifice is for the purpose of union with the spirit via consumption:

Animals are cooked and eaten following all Santeria rituals (except healing and death rites, where the sickness is believed to pass into the dead animal). Eating the sacrificed animal is considered a sharing with the Orisha, who only consumes the animal's blood, while the worshippers eat the meat.

BBC - Religions - Santeria: Sacrifice

It would be interesting to see how the Orisha spirit consumes animal blood. Perhaps similar to the Hindu elephant god sipping milk.

It's just all about belief, and the power of belief. I do believe the scholars would call most of this a child stage of a religion.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Think about what you said: 'they're certain it has the power they believe it has'. Of course! They're certain because they believe it does. Once this is realized, the ritual loses its power.

I'm quite certain that such has been brought up to the priests and priestesses before, and not just in their religion either. However this goes against what you said that "no one knows whether or not it has power" - they do know, that's why they do it. Whether it be a placebo or magic, it works for them. And so it is not based in ignorance, just because you don't believe it. Rather, your judgement is biased and - from what's seen here - ignorant itself through a complete lack of understanding regarding such forms of worship.

 

[Tumah]

That's not true. One cannot prove or disprove religion since it is outside of the spheres of Logic, Reason, and Analysis. The argument works not due to religion being true or untrue, but because religion is based upon belief in some doctrine as true. There is no such 'internal logic consistent with itself'. That is all made up from the basic premise we call 'belief'. All I am asking is for you to demonstrate that animal sacrifice actually does what it says it does. Then you can talk to me about 'true', 'untrue', 'logic', and 'consistency'.

No, that's wrong. It can be argued (successfully or not) that religion is outside the sphere of "proof", but unless it's inconsistent with itself, there's no reason for it to be outside logic, reason or analysis. Just because you don't understand the concept, doesn't mean its illogical. Just because you're not familiar with the reason, doesn't mean it does exist. Just because you can't detect it, doesn't mean its not detectable.

What I am saying is that in both cases, some wrong has been committed. The Jewish and Christian view sees it as sin, and repentance and atonement are in order. Part of that process involves animal sacrifice. Buddhists don't see sin as the cause, but ignorance, and so get at the root cause of the wrongdoing, correct it, and move on. No animal sacrifice required.

No, I think you are misunderstanding. "Getting to the root cause of the wrongdoing" is part of repentance. What you keep describing that Buddhists do, in Judaism falls under the category of "repentance" not "atonement". This is part of the process that one needs to do before bringing the sacrifice.

LEVITICUS 17:11
“And whatever man of the house of Israel, or of the strangers who sojourn among you, who consumes any blood, I will set My face against that person who consumes blood, and will cut him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes an atonement for the soul. Therefore, I say to the children of Israel, `No one among you shall consume blood, nor shall any stranger who sojourns among you consume blood.‘”

That's not the Jewish translation of the verse. The word you have translated as "life" is what we call "soul". I don't know why your translation uses "life" and "soul" for the same Hebrew word, but that's what its doing.

That kind of thinking is a sickness of the mind, disguised as something good, in the name of an imaginary authority. You possess nothing. It is ego that is in possession, thinking it is the doer. God is not interested in your juvenile notions of killing for sacrifice in his name.

Everything that I own, is my property. Everything else in this paragraph lacks substance.

Of course not. A man possessed by ego thinks himself righteous and in complete control.

 

[godnotgod]

I'm quite certain that such has been brought up to the priests and priestesses before, and not just in their religion either. However this goes against what you said that "no one knows whether or not it has power" - they do know, that's why they do it. Whether it be a placebo or magic, it works for them. And so it is not based in ignorance, just because you don't believe it. Rather, your judgement is biased and - from what's seen here - ignorant itself through a complete lack of understanding regarding such forms of worship.

In this particular case, namely, Santeria, animal sacrifice is only about consumption as a means of sharing (not even divine union) with Orisha, the spirit-god. So there is nothing to know; only believe. I suppose the believer could say, due to the power of his belief, that he is actually sharing a meal with Orisha. But all one need do is eat dead animal meat. That is the ritual of 'sharing'. No one 'knows' if it 'works'. It 'works' because they believe that consumption of animal flesh is equal to sharing with the spirit. That's all. Just a belief, which then leads to the ritual, and not the other way around. My understanding comes from the link I provided. Is it incorrect?

For the believer, belief equates to truth in his mind. So when he says, for example, that Jesus washed away his sins, it is absolutely true because he believes it to be true. The real question is WHY he believes it. The mystic, OTOH, transcends belief, opinion, conjecture, and concept for direct experience, cutting through all obstacles between himself and Reality.

 

[godnotgod]

No, that's wrong. It can be argued (successfully or not) that religion is outside the sphere of "proof", but unless it's inconsistent with itself, there's no reason for it to be outside logic, reason or analysis. Just because you don't understand the concept, doesn't mean its illogical. Just because you're not familiar with the reason, doesn't mean it does exist. Just because you can't detect it, doesn't mean its not detectable.

It's not detectable or provable via reason. An untruth can still be internally consistent. Dogma just creates more dogma consistent with itself. The Church's position that the Sun revolved around the Earth is just one example. However, in the world of the spiritual experience, it is beyond Reason, Logic, and Analysis, but here we have direct union with the spirit, and not just doctrinal belief, such as the belief that animal sacrifice is efficacious for either atonement or remission of sin. Can you show me via demonstration, exactly how animal sacrifice achieves what it is supposed to achieve? Does an angel descend from the heavens, for example, and dramatically and unmistakably illuminate the sinner's cranium with a halo as part of the ritual?

No, I think you are misunderstanding. "Getting to the root cause of the wrongdoing" is part of repentance. What you keep describing that Buddhists do, in Judaism falls under the category of "repentance" not "atonement". This is part of the process that one needs to do before bringing the sacrifice.

Getting to the root cause of the wrongdoing is to eliminate suffering, the goal of any Buddhist. It's not about repentance. My point is, however, that the Buddhist achieves what the believer in animal sacrifice wants to achieve, but without animal sacrifice. The reality is that the Buddhist goes deeper into the question of suffering, rooting out ignorance and evil at its core. A complete transformation of consciousness takes place. This transformation is called 'Enlightenment'. The believer still remains a believer.

What you call repentance and atonement are, in reality, a single process.

That's not the Jewish translation of the verse. The word you have translated as "life" is what we call "soul". I don't know why your translation uses "life" and "soul" for the same Hebrew word, but that's what its doing.

Does it really matter in terms of the point, which is that the life force or soul force, if you prefer, is in the blood. I think that is pretty clear from Leviticus.

Everything that I own, is my property. Everything else in this paragraph lacks substance.

The 'I' that 'owns' is the ego, an illusion. You own nothing, let alone an animal. Where do you get this notion?

 

[Tumah]

It's not detectable or provable via reason. An untruth can still be internally consistent. Dogma just creates more dogma consistent with itself. The Church's position that the Sun revolved around the Earth is just one example. However, in the world of the spiritual experience, it is beyond Reason, Logic, and Analysis, but here we have direct union with the spirit, and not just doctrinal belief, such as the belief that animal sacrifice is efficacious for either atonement or remission of sin. Can you show me via demonstration, exactly how animal sacrifice achieves what it is supposed to achieve? Does an angel descend from the heavens, for example, and dramatically and unmistakably illuminate the sinner's cranium with a halo as part of the ritual?

I can't demonstrate it for you, because we are unable to perceive the spiritual process that's occurring. But that's a problem with our ability to perceive, not because it is undetectable. By your logic, did atoms only come into existent when they became detectable? When atomic theory was still a philosophy rather than evidence based, were they untrue? Obviously not. So you can make the argument that we can't prove that we're right. But you can't make the argument that what I am saying is untrue. And if it is true, there is no reason that the process can't be logical or reasonable provided enough information to draw conclusion.

Getting to the root cause of the wrongdoing is to eliminate suffering, the goal of any Buddhist. It's not about repentance. My point is, however, that the Buddhist achieves what the believer in animal sacrifice wants to achieve, but without animal sacrifice.

Yes, you keep saying the same thing and I keep telling you that this is wrong. What we are trying to achieve with atonement is different than what the Buddhist is doing with introspection and self-rectification. Sacrifice is a part of atonement. Atonement is not the same as eliminating suffering.

The reality is that the Buddhist goes deeper into the question of suffering, rooting out ignorance and evil at its core. A complete transformation of consciousness takes place. This transformation is called 'Enlightenment'. The believer still remains a believer.

This seems to be based on the idea that evil is based on ignorance and not on desire. I don't think that's completely true. Ignorance can sometimes be the cause, but definitely not always. There is a sect in Orthodox Judaism that uses correct knowledge to attain self-rectification. But not while dismissing desire.

What you call repentance and atonement are, in reality, a single process.

That's false. Repentance relates to the self. Atonement relates to the other. When I fix myself, I've repented. When I fix the damage I did to you, I've atoned. They go hand-in-hand, yes. But they're distinct.

Does it really matter in terms of the point, which is that the life force or soul force, if you prefer, is in the blood. I think that is pretty clear from Leviticus.

Its just the soul. Its not a force. So we believe that animals have souls. Now what?

The 'I' that 'owns' is the ego, an illusion. You own nothing, let alone an animal. Where do you get this notion?

According to your philosophy where I don't exist, the animal doesn't exist either. In which case what I've done is only an illusion and nothing. Within your maya, I do exist, the animal does exist and my possession of the animal does exist.

 

[godnotgod]

[QUOTE="The Ragin Pagan, post: 5312167, member: 61391.... "no one knows whether or not it has power" - they do know, that's why they do it. Whether it be a placebo or magic, it works for them.[/QUOTE]

So does Santa Claus 'work' for children; it absolutely does; until they find out, and then the belief loses its power, and they wake up and grow out of that phase.

 

[godnotgod]

I can't demonstrate it for you, because we are unable to perceive the spiritual process that's occurring. But that's a problem with our ability to perceive, not because it is undetectable. By your logic, did atoms only come into existent when they became detectable? When atomic theory was still a philosophy rather than evidence based, were they untrue? Obviously not. So you can make the argument that we can't prove that we're right. But you can't make the argument that what I am saying is untrue. And if it is true, there is no reason that the process can't be logical or reasonable provided enough information to draw conclusion.

While atoms at one time were undetectable, they became so via scientific methodology. But scientific methodology cannot ever be applied to animal sacrifice because it is untestable by such means. And while one cannot make the argument that animal sacrifice is untrue, neither can such an argument be made for anything else not provable via science. The real problem here is the basis for the belief in the first place; not whether it is true or not. Anything conceived beyond proof can be true, but to believe it to be true is quite another matter. It just amounts to wishful thinking. Animal sacrifice could wash away sin, but if you don't believe that it does, it has no power. Belief is everything.

Yes, you keep saying the same thing and I keep telling you that this is wrong. What we are trying to achieve with atonement is different than what the Buddhist is doing with introspection and self-rectification. Sacrifice is a part of atonement. Atonement is not the same as eliminating suffering.

If you are living in sin, you are suffering, because you are cut off from God. At least, that is the belief. It's just that, for the Buddhist, the problem is not sin, but ignorance. By rooting out ignorance, suffering is eliminated. For the theist, repentance/atonement is the dissolution of sin, which is the cause of his suffering. So the goals are the same, but one requires animal sacrifice; the other does not.

This seems to be based on the idea that evil is based on ignorance and not on desire. I don't think that's completely true. Ignorance can sometimes be the cause, but definitely not always. There is a sect in Orthodox Judaism that uses correct knowledge to attain self-rectification. But not while dismissing desire.

From your POV, evil leads to sin, and would require repentance and animal sacrifice, just a belief. It works as long as you believe that it does, whether it is true or not.

That's false. Repentance relates to the self. Atonement relates to the other. When I fix myself, I've repented. When I fix the damage I did to you, I've atoned. They go hand-in-hand, yes. But they're distinct.

If they go hand in hand, they are one. The moment there is the concept of self, there is other. In reality, there is no such self and other. You repent because of the harm to other; when you've atoned to the other, you've absolved yourself.

Its just the soul. Its not a force. So we believe that animals have souls. Now what?

You can believe that if you wish, but that notion means there is a self called 'I'. If something has a soul, then it requires salvation. I believe Soul has the animal, in which case spiritual awakening is required.

Leviticus makes it clear that the life force is in the blood, and it is the blood which has the power to wash away sin. In the East, OTOH, the life force is in the breath (chi), which purifies and allows one to see into the true nature of one's suffering, which is ignorance. Seeing into the true nature of suffering is to be free from suffering. But if you only believe, you are still ignorant, and may sin again. You don't understand the nature of things; you don't understand what motivates you to do the things you do. And so, you need a ready tool when you do sin, and that can be animal sacrifice, or Jesus, or some other belief-based device.

According to your philosophy where I don't exist, the animal doesn't exist either. In which case what I've done is only an illusion and nothing. Within your maya, I do exist, the animal does exist and my possession of the animal does exist.

If you don't exist as "i", then who is it that is in possession of anything? So even though you don't exist as having an inherent self nature, suffering has been caused for no real reason, other than to satisfy the whim of the illusory ego.

On the second level of consciousness, sleep with dreams, that reality is real to you. But upon awakening, it becomes clear that your dream was illusory. The same is true on the now awakened level, the state of Identification, in which one thinks oneself to be real, but upon awakening to an even higher level, it becomes clear that what one thought to be real, is but a fiction. You realy think yourself to be a self in possession, but where is this so called 'self'? And the moment the search begins, who is it that is doing the looking? You see the dilemma, or not?

 

[RESOLUTION]

om exhaustion and disease in a factory as they are from actual slaughter. And we are better than the starving dwindling wolves whose powerful maws make quick work of an elder rabbit that probably would have become irreversibly sick in the following week? Should the animals resort to plant diets like many humans have consciously decided to partake in?

How do you feel about animal sacrifice? What are your arguments?

Also, I forgot to mention before; supposedly some people claim there is a "right way" to kill for sacrifice (minimal suffering). Why would suffering be important to the ritual? How does suffering of a lack thereof change anything?

I think an animal smells and senses death, the only killing of animals should be for food.

It should be quick and humane,

There is no reason today for animals to be used for sacrifice. I would never eat meat from an animal killed inhumanely and no government should allow any killing unless done that way,

Animals would die far worse deaths and painful if they were not maintained by farmers giving them a health life and one where they have not suffered, If animals no longer sourced for food they would become a danger to humans roaming free and even their diseases could cross over into humans.


I don't think enough people reason this through.

 

[Tumah]

While atoms at one time were undetectable, they became so via scientific methodology. But scientific methodology cannot ever be applied to animal sacrifice because it is untestable by such means. And while one cannot make the argument that animal sacrifice is untrue, neither can such an argument be made for anything else not provable via science.

Just because its not currently detectable, doesn't mean it can never become so.

The real problem here is the basis for the belief in the first place; not whether it is true or not. Anything conceived beyond proof can be true, but to believe it to be true is quite another matter. It just amounts to wishful thinking.

The real question is whether the source of the revelation is true or not. No different than you reading a book written about another's alleged experience. That's not question of wishful thinking. That's a question of veracity.

Animal sacrifice could wash away sin, but if you don't believe that it does, it has no power. Belief is everything.

I don't believe any of that is true. Animal sacrifice doesn't wash away sin in Judaism. And believing in something is not what gives it power so long as its existence is separate from your mind. Which I believe is the case here.

If you are living in sin, you are suffering, because you are cut off from God. At least, that is the belief.

No, that is not the belief. I'm Jewish not Christian. We don't have a concept of "living in sin". Nor do all sins cut one off from G-d. There are sins that when intentionally done, do cause one to be "cut off", but that is not the case with all sins, nor does being "cut off" always mean "from G-d.

The sin offering is prescribed for unintentional sins that were transgressed when if done intentionally, the punishment would be to be "cut off". That means that the sacrifice (at leas this particular one) is only brought when one isn't "cut off".

And that's only one type of sacrifice. There are seven, six and a half of which have nothing to do with sin whatsoever.

It's just that, for the Buddhist, the problem is not sin, but ignorance. By rooting out ignorance, suffering is eliminated.

The one who understand abuse the most, the one who experiences it, is often the one who abuses his fellow. Sagacity will not save a city from drought. The wisest man in the world can still be assaulted.

For the theist, repentance/atonement is the dissolution of sin, which is the cause of his suffering. So the goals are the same, but one requires animal sacrifice; the other does not.

Sin is not always the cause of suffering according to Judaism. Nor are animal sacrifices prescribed for the vast majority of sins that occur. I don't honestly think you know what you're talking about.

From your POV, evil leads to sin, and would require repentance and animal sacrifice, just a belief. It works as long as you believe that it does, whether it is true or not.

No. from my POV lack of self control, lack of caring, these are the things that lead to sin.

And for these types of sins, sacrifice isn't prescribed or allowed. The sin offering is only brought for unintentional sins. An unintentional sin is defined as a sin that was done through forgetting that the circumstances under which a certain action was done rendered that action prohibited, or not knowing that the action was prohibited in the first place. These are the only sins that a sin offering a brought for.

There are only a handful of intentional sins that have a sacrifice attached to them, the guilt offering. That's like five out of over 300. And I don't even think there's a full five of them, I can only think of three.

If they go hand in hand, they are one. The moment there is the concept of self, there is other. In reality, there is no such self and other. You repent because of the harm to other; when you've atoned to the other, you've absolved yourself.

Things that go hand-in-hand are not one, they are related. It takes two to make a baby. It takes two to undue a sin. When you repent you rectify the mistake you have in yourself. You uproot the issue that caused you to sin. When you atone, you rectify the mistake you've done to another. Both are very necessary but separate actions.

You can believe that if you wish, but that notion means there is a self called 'I'.

Yes, there is.

If something has a soul, then it requires salvation.

This does not follow.

I believe Soul has the animal, in which case spiritual awakening is required.

Thanks for the heads up.

Leviticus makes it clear that the life force is in the blood, and it is the blood which has the power to wash away sin.

No, Leviticus makes it clear that the soul is in the blood and the blood has the ability to help one gain atonement for one's sins. Sometimes.

In the East, OTOH, the life force is in the breath (chi),

Although not related to this response, the three words that are used for soul in Biblical Hebrew, all relate to the breath. One of them actually means "breath", the other means "wind" (like the blowing of the breath), and the third seems to mean 'settled breath'.

which purifies and allows one to see into the true nature of one's suffering, which is ignorance. Seeing into the true nature of suffering is to be free from suffering.

Seeing into the true nature of suffering doesn't free one from suffering so long as one's pain receptors are working. All it does is re-frame one's suffering into a positive experience. You don't need to be a Buddhist for that. "Everything G-d does is for the best".

But if you only believe, you are still ignorant, and may sin again. You don't understand the nature of things; you don't understand what motivates you to do the things you do.

I'm not sure how you're using the word "believe" here, so I'll just have to relate to the rest of this sentence. Understanding motivation is not a great way to prevent sin. It's helpful, sure. But not super effective. What prevents sin is self-control and the desire to not sin. You can completely understand your desires, but so long as you chose not to rule over them, you will continue to sin. So long as you chose not to care about your fellow, you will continue to hurt him. On the other hand, you can understand nothing about your motivation, but out of care for your fellow, chose not to hurt him. Out of love for G-d, chose not to sin.

And so, you need a ready tool when you do sin, and that can be animal sacrifice, or Jesus, or some other belief-based device.

Again, I am not Christian. And you appear to be ignorant of Jewish theology. Hopefully, by the time you've read up to here, you'll have recognized that this statement was said in ignorance.

If you don't exist as "i", then who is it that is in possession of anything? So even though you don't exist as having an inherent self nature, suffering has been caused for no real reason, other than to satisfy the whim of the illusory ego.

If you don't exist as an "I" then suffering hasn't been caused.

On the second level of consciousness, sleep with dreams, that reality is real to you. But upon awakening, it becomes clear that your dream was illusory. The same is true on the now awakened level, the state of Identification, in which one thinks oneself to be real, but upon awakening to an even higher level, it becomes clear that what one thought to be real, is but a fiction. You realy think yourself to be a self in possession, but where is this so called 'self'? And the moment the search begins, who is it that is doing the looking? You see the dilemma, or not?

On the first level of consciousness nothing has happened nor ever will happen, because only the Self exists. There is nothing to atone for, nor is there any suffering. There is nothing besides the Self. You can't use this as an argument against me, because on the first level of consciousness, the animal doesn't exist. Its just the Self affecting the Self. I've done nothing because there is no "I" to do nor "animal" to be done to.

This level of consciousness is irrelevant to the second level of consciousness, because the second level of consciousness is where things outside the Self do exist whether an illusory existence or not. The only way to exist within the second level of consciousness is to acknowledge and relate to it. Otherwise, either you leave it (why eat when food is not anymore real than you are) or you destroy it (because nothing has greater or lesser importance, everything is the Self).

When you acknowledge your existence within the second level of consciousness, the illusory self that the Self gains, can existence within its bounds. Its only then that my actions have importance. So once I acknowledge that within the second level, there is an "I", there is an "animal" and there is "possession", then you can come to me with complaints about what I do.

The problem is that you are talking to me about how I'm wrong because the first level of consciousness while relating to actions that can only be wrong in the second level of consciousness. So the problem is that you are mixing two parts of your own philosophy together in order to be sanctimonious.

Do you see the dilemma?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is killing a chicken so as to make Chicken McNuggets any more humane or virtuous than killing a chicken as an offering to one's demanding god?

.

Yes. The McNuggets feed someone.

For a parallel with religious animal sacrifice, consider trophy hunting: the killing is done as a hobby, not for subsistence, and the animal doesn't get used for a useful purpose afterward.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just because its not currently detectable, doesn't mean it can never become so.

No, but it means your position is unjustified. The fact that we can't completely rule out the possibility that your unjustified position might be found to be coincidentally true one day doesn't change this.

 

[Tumah]

No, but it means your position is unjustified. The fact that we can't completely rule out the possibility that your unjustified position might be found to be coincidentally true one day doesn't change this.

I think its only unjustifiable if its not true. My position is not that someone figured it out, my position is that someone who could observe it, taught it. If that's true, then my justification is in following what the person who was able to perceive it told me. In that case, if my position is found later observed by a secondary party to be true, then they've only verified what was already observed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think its only unjustifiable if its not true.

Nonsense. Truth and justification are different things.

If you predict a dice roll, you'll be right in about 1 every 6 rolls. This doesn't mean that your prediction was justified - i.e. based on a reasonable inference from something real.

(It's also possible to be justified and wrong, but that's probably off-topic)

My position is not that someone figured it out, my position is that someone who could observe it, taught it.

Do you mean God?

If that's true, then my justification is in following what the person who was able to perceive it told me. In that case, if my position is found later observed by a secondary party to be true, then they've only verified what was already observed.

You haven't gotten rid of the problem of justification; you've just swapped out the things you need to justify to support your conclusion.

 

[Tumah]

Nonsense. Truth and justification are different things.

If you predict a dice roll, you'll be right in about 1 every 6 rolls. This doesn't mean that your prediction was justified - i.e. based on a reasonable inference from something real.

(It's also possible to be justified and wrong, but that's probably off-topic)

If your doctor tells you to take a controlled substance, you're justified in taking the substance because your doctor who is an authority, said to take it. A prophet is also an authority.

Do you mean God?

Well, G-d also, but I mean Moses.

You haven't gotten rid of the problem of justification; you've just swapped out the things you need to justify to support your conclusion.

I've moved it up to the author to justify himself as I'm following on their authority. If you can repeat their conditions, you'd be able to observe it for yourself.

 

[Akivah]

I don't see anything else that qualifies. Show me what is, then.

Your belief is based on your own beliefs.
My belief is based on the Torah.