NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/org/mensa/8972

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-29 | 3.6 KB

Xref: sparky rec.org.mensa:8972 soc.culture.jewish:24188 alt.atheism:24492 alt.slack:3587
Newsgroups: rec.org.mensa,soc.culture.jewish,alt.atheism,alt.slack
Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnewsc!cbfsb!col400!hem
From: [e-mail] (Hillel E. Markowitz)
Subject: Re: Re^4: Atheism and Intelligence
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: gcol400
Organization: AT&T Federal Systems
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:24:28 GMT
Lines: 60

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Allen Ethridge) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Hillel E. Markowitz) writes:
>>
>>Note: this response was to the posting on soc.culture.jewish and
>>is from that viewpoint.
>>
>And this response is to the posting on alt.atheism.
>
>>
>>No.  There is a story of someone who came to his Rabbi and said
>>that after 20 years of study he had come to the conclusion that
>>he was an "apikorus" (heretic).  The Rabbi answered that he did
>>not know enough to reach the status of an "apikorus" and he
>>should study more if he hoped to reach that level.  The example
>>of an apikorus in the Talmud is Elishah Ben Avuya (aka Acher) who
>>was considered one of the four in his generation who had reached
>>the level of "pardes" along with Rabbi Akiva.
>>
>>Besides, you may have read a little (call it "some study") but
>>you haven't shown the "insight" (at least in this series of
>>posts) and you haven't had a "good teacher".  Note that the first
>>element of the three you mention is impossible without the last
>>element.  That is why there are areas of study that are limited
>>to one on one teaching.
>>
>All you're saying is that someone who doesn't dedicate their life to studying
>Judaism can't know enough about it to reject it.  Do you know what nonsense

You misunderstand what has been said.  Someone who says that they
have studied and become expert enough to reject something *on its
own terms* has to demonstrate sufficient knowledge of that belief
to reject it.  Thus, if I were a xian, and rejected xianity, then
indeed I should have studied it sufficiently to demonstrate the
point at which I rejected it.  Since I am Jewish (and note the
original xref) reading this on s.c.j, then the knowledge
demonstrated has to be that of Judaism.  I can reject xianity (or
atheism, or buddhism, etc) without "devoting my life to it"
because my study is in Judaism and the other beliefs are rejected
on that basis.  The original poster did not demonstrate knowledge
of Judaism to argue within its own terms.  An analogy may be
someone arguing Einsteinean relativity while demonstrating a
knowledge of only Newtonian physics.  While a full knowledge of
quantum theory may not be required, a certain level is assumed.

Look at the arguments on alt.messianic for example.  The xian
missionaries there show quite a sophisticated knowledge of
Judaism.  They would be unable to get their mistranslations and
misinterpretations across if they didn't.  Similarly, the Jews
demonstrate a knowledge of xianity which many American xians
don't have.  They would be unable to function there if they
didn't have that knowledge.

Again, the level required is not "lifelong devotion" but it is
quite a bit greater than that of a child.

--
____________________________________________________
| Hillel Markowitz    |     Im ain ani li mi li    |
| [e-mail] | Veahavta Leraiecha Kamocha |
|_____________________|____________________________|