Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

I am split between Judaism and Christianity watch

Announcements
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Anonymous1502)
    I thought a bar mitzvah is when you celebrate that you turned 13 (not sure if it is 13) what glass?
    This is about mutilating the genitals of baby boys born to Jewish families when they're born. The bar mitzvah is the religious initiation of a boy into the Jewish faith and yes, it's at 13.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    You may be surprised to hear that in rather modern philosophy, Hume's argument against miracles has been strongly challenged if not actually, successfully refuted.

    He didn't have the tool 'inference to the best explanation' in his toolbox as it wasn't until a few centuries later that probability theory arose with Bayes. The recent change in impressions of Hume's argument actually started with Humean supporters, who were looking to use Bayes theorem to illustrate the strength of the argument - but it just couldn't work. Somewhat of a watershed came in 2000 when John Earman, who's an agnostic philosopher of science and an able user of Bayes theorem, demonstrated how it fails. To try and give accurate picture of the book in one sentence as I can - Hume's argument is very broad (people lie and blind people don't suddenly get their sight back against scientific reasoning) which only serves to make the prior probability of something happening very unlikely. But what Earman showed is that it is perfectly possible, and in some cases normal, for specific cases to be so unlikely that people lied that it neutralises the prior probability - which is Hume's whole argument down the pan.

    If you are interested in the contemporary debate on Hume i can't strongly enough suggest giving Earman's book a read, aptly titled 'Hume's abject failure'


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I am not concerned I am not a male.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I wouldnt convert to a different religion if your heart isnt in it. Saying that, if you have an interest in Judaism there are several branches which can cater to your beliefs and customs. For example Orthodox Judaism is the strictest, having a lengthy conversion in which you will learn how to become an Orthodox Jew and follow the laws directly. However other branches including Reform, Masorti and Liberal can also be appealing. Reform, some Masorti and Liberal communities completely remove the sexist element existing in Orthodox Judaism and in Reform synagogues there are several services and prayers/discussions in English so you can appeal to God in any way you desire. Also in Liberal Judaism you can choose to follow any law/custom you desire and still be considered an observing Jew (The belief of the torah laws are outdated).
    Ultimately, dont convert just out of curiosity or 'looking for something new', perhaps visit the church and seek advice from a vicar or priest and discuss your woes. But know there are options! Good Luck

    Source: (Non-observant but knowledgeable) Orthodox Jew
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NJA)
    Our forefathers fought and died to protect us from people who tell us what we can/cannot say.
    Well that's not true because your one-man-operated "religion" was only invented a few years ago.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    So, the video description says, "God recovers sight of the blind woman."…

    As David Hume said: "no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish"

    What is more likely, that we have been misled into believing that a blind woman was healed and now can see, or that a miracle has taken place?
    PRSOM
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Anonymous1502)
    I am not concerned I am not a male.
    Why does it matter that you're not male? He was talking about philosophy, which isn't a male-only vocation.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Why does it matter that you're not male? He was talking about philosophy, which isn't a male-only vocation.
    It is an only male vocation please get your facts right.I looked it up in the internet.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Anonymous1502)
    It is an only male vocation please get your facts right.I looked it up in the internet.
    LOL, what? I suggest you get your facts right -- there are plenty of women studying philosophy. I'd love to see which reliable website you got your information from.

    Honestly struggling to compute the sheer ignorance of that comment...
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous1502)
    For a while I feel like something is missing I feel like I can't speak to God anymore I feel so lost.For a while, Judaism has been fascinating me I kind of want to convert however maybe I just want a new beginning I feel like I can no longer speak sincerely to God.I do not know what to do I was raised Catholic, but I don't want to be Catholic because many are homophobic and sexist (not all but some) also the news keeps making the catholic church look bad.I am against smoking and alcohol, but I don't want to be Muslim because it is not a religion that interests me.Am I coming to an age where I have lost my identity and maybe religion will help me find myself again?Should I just look for a different type of Christianity or do what? I don't know whether I believe or not I believe in Jesus, I never thought about it.I guess being raised Catholic I just accepted it and did not think about it.
    Leaving Catholicism doesn't mean leaving your identity. If you don't click with it then don't force it, embrace this moment of change being within the gap (not fitting a group) isn't a bad thing. You may eventually connect with another religion or reconnect with Catholicism all over.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Supermonkey92)
    You may be surprised to hear that in rather modern philosophy, Hume's argument against miracles has been strongly challenged if not actually, successfully refuted.

    He didn't have the tool 'inference to the best explanation' in his toolbox as it wasn't until a few centuries later that probability theory arose with Bayes. The recent change in impressions of Hume's argument actually started with Humean supporters, who were looking to use Bayes theorem to illustrate the strength of the argument - but it just couldn't work. Somewhat of a watershed came in 2000 when John Earman, who's an agnostic philosopher of science and an able user of Bayes theorem, demonstrated how it fails. To try and give accurate picture of the book in one sentence as I can - Hume's argument is very broad (people lie and blind people don't suddenly get their sight back against scientific reasoning) which only serves to make the prior probability of something happening very unlikely.
    Part of Hume's argument is also based upon the contrary claims put forward by different religions. Each different religion puts forward a competing and mutually exclusive miraculous claim that supports the truth of their religion. He argues that the miracle claims of Christianity are evidence against the miracles of other religions, but equally so, the miraculous claims of other religions are evidence against the miracles of Christianity. On these grounds, he concludes that they all effective cancel each other out.

    But I think the strongest argument is that we can never be 100% sure our senses have not failed us. If we can never be 100% sure that we seen what we seen, then we can never state with certainty that we witnessed a miracle.

    But what Earman showed is that it is perfectly possible, and in some cases normal, for specific cases to be so unlikely that people lied that it neutralises the prior probability - which is Hume's whole argument down the pan.
    Can you rephrase this as I am struggling to get my heads around this sentence?

    If you are interested in the contemporary debate on Hume i can't strongly enough suggest giving Earman's book a read, aptly titled 'Hume's abject failure'
    I just seen a review that says it is quite dense with probability calculus, which is something I admittedly don't have a grasp of. But I shall try and look into it.

    Also, could not this same argument you put forward be used to justify quackery and pseudo-scientific cures and healing practices that have no more evidence than the typical religious miracle. Would you be willing to put forth a similar defence for homoeopathy for instance?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous1502)
    It is an only male vocation please get your facts right.I looked it up in the internet.
    Uhhh, there have been plenty of influential philosophers of religion (to specifically target the OP) which would contradict this statement. Some would be Mary Midgley, Catherine Keller, Sarah Coakley and Linda Zagzebski
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Scrappy-coco)
    Oh wow. Just wow. Do you know when this 'Lost Gospels' autograph is estimated to have been?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    well you see most older copies of the bible have 15-20 extra sections, which were later removed (and don't feature in modern translations).
    these 'lost gospels' were removed by the catholic church about 1500 years ago because they were considered 'heretical'.
    For this reason there are few copies left, written in Greek (which the original bibles were also written in).
    The destruction of this 'heresy' was so extensive that most of what we now know about these manuscripts is references in other works.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    LOL, what? I suggest you get your facts right -- there are plenty of women studying philosophy. I'd love to see which reliable website you got your information from.

    Honestly struggling to compute the sheer ignorance of that comment...
    Brit Milah: CircumcisionOf all of the commandments in Judaism, the brit milah (literally, Covenant of Circumcision) is probably the one most universally observed. It is commonly referred to as a bris (covenant, using the Ashkenazic pronunciation). Even the most secular of Jews, who observe no other part of Judaism, almost always observe these laws. Of course, until quite recently, the majority of males in the United States were routinely circumcised, so this doesn't seem very surprising. But keep in mind that there is more to the ritual of the brit milah than merely the process of physically removing the foreskin, and many otherwise non-observant Jews observe the entire ritual.The commandment to circumcise is given at Gen. 17:10-14 and Lev. 12:3. The covenant was originally made with Abraham. It is the first commandment specific to the Jews.Circumcision is performed only on males. Although some cultures have a practice of removing all or part of the woman's clitoris, often erroneously referred to as "female circumcision," that ritual has never been a part of Judaism.

    http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm

    There is the information.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous1502)
    Of course, until quite recently, the majority of males in the United States were routinely circumcised
    That was a 19th century idea to improve "mental cleanliness" in the belief it prevented masturbation in teenage boys. Basically, misguided male genital mutilation.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Anonymous1502)
    Brit Milah: CircumcisionOf all of the commandments in Judaism, the brit milah (literally, Covenant of Circumcision) is probably the one most universally observed. It is commonly referred to as a bris (covenant, using the Ashkenazic pronunciation). Even the most secular of Jews, who observe no other part of Judaism, almost always observe these laws. Of course, until quite recently, the majority of males in the United States were routinely circumcised, so this doesn't seem very surprising. But keep in mind that there is more to the ritual of the brit milah than merely the process of physically removing the foreskin, and many otherwise non-observant Jews observe the entire ritual.The commandment to circumcise is given at Gen. 17:10-14 and Lev. 12:3. The covenant was originally made with Abraham. It is the first commandment specific to the Jews.Circumcision is performed only on males. Although some cultures have a practice of removing all or part of the woman's clitoris, often erroneously referred to as "female circumcision," that ritual has never been a part of Judaism.

    http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm

    There is the information.
    This has nothing to do with philosophy apparently being a male-only vocation.

    (Original post by Anonymous1502)
    I am not concerned I am not a male.
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Why does it matter that you're not male? He was talking about philosophy, which isn't a male-only vocation.
    (Original post by Anonymous1502)
    It is an only male vocation please get your facts right.I looked it up in the internet.
    My suggestion would be to read a post twice before replying to it because you were clearly talking about philosophy, not genital mutilation. I don't think I used any fancy words so I can only conclude that you don't read things properly before typing out replies to them.

    I can only guess that you don't actually know the meaning of the word 'vocation' and assumed it meant something other than it does. Such are the consequences of being on the Internet whilst being exceptionally ignorant...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    This has nothing to do with philosophy apparently being a male-only vocation.







    My suggestion would be to read a post twice before replying to it because you were clearly talking about philosophy, not genital mutilation. I don't think I used any fancy words so I can only conclude that you don't read things properly before typing out replies to them.

    I can only guess that you don't actually know the meaning of the word 'vocation' and assumed it meant something other than it does. Such are the consequences of being on the Internet whilst being exceptionally ignorant...
    I do but I did not actually read what you said sorry.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simes)
    I think you mis-spelled 'indoctrination'.
    Have you ever done the Alpha Course?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    Part of Hume's argument is also based upon the contrary claims put forward by different religions. Each different religion puts forward a competing and mutually exclusive miraculous claim that supports the truth of their religion. He argues that the miracle claims of Christianity are evidence against the miracles of other religions, but equally so, the miraculous claims of other religions are evidence against the miracles of Christianity. On these grounds, he concludes that they all effective cancel each other out.

    But I think the strongest argument is that we can never be 100% sure our senses have not failed us. If we can never be 100% sure that we seen what we seen, then we can never state with certainty that we witnessed a miracle.



    Can you rephrase this as I am struggling to get my heads around this sentence?



    I just seen a review that says it is quite dense with probability calculus, which is something I admittedly don't have a grasp of. But I shall try and look into it.

    Also, could not this same argument you put forward be used to justify quackery and pseudo-scientific cures and healing practices that have no more evidence than the typical religious miracle. Would you be willing to put forth a similar defence for homoeopathy for instance?
    Hi Epicurean,

    I'd like to respond to your point on Hume but first, I would recommend a lecture by Tim Mcgrew at the conference in honour of Alvin Plantinga last year. He goes through the history briefly and how the conversation on Hume has worked out. He walks you through it rather than being chucked to the sharks with probability calculus! He's somewhat of an expert especially being a contributer to probability theory and writing the miracles section on the Stanford website.

    As for your point about never being certain about the reliability of our senses, Why say it? Why pick miracles to take this biased view towards, as opposed to something else? E.g. Suppose that I say that I have so much trust in my friend Jim that I will never believe that he has done something really bad unless I can be "100% sure that my senses are not deceiving me." Would not this be said to be an unreasonable and closed-minded approach to any re-evaluation of Jim character? So, if I saw with my own eyes Jim beating a kitten to death, I would conclude that Jim is still a wonderful person unless I can be 100% sure that my senses are not deceiving me.

    Such refusals to reconsider a proposition on the basis of future evidence are nothing more than closing oneself, a priori, to evidence. There is no justification for that sort of refusal. It is not as though "Miracles do not happen" is a mathematical certainty, any more than, "Jim is a wonderful person" is a mathematical certainty.

    Naturally, with some things, we say that it would take a _lot_ to convince us, and that is legitimate. That is why I do not lightly accept miracle claims and _might_ not accept the claim that the blind woman was healed in the church. But to state a principle of pure dogma against miracles, utterly closed to contrary evidence. I don't think this dogmatism can be justified.

    When you speak of "putting forward the same argument" in support of quackery. I think that problem only works if the same argument is construed at such a broad level of description as to be useless. Compare: You believe that a traffic accident occurred on the basis of witness testimony. Well, couldn't _that same argument_ be used to justify belief in alien abductions?

    But obviously, we are not just putting forward believing lightly and readily in anything that any witness says, any more than the person is who believes in the traffic accident. Evidential considerations are always more fine-grained than that. The argument from witness testimony for miracles is not based on a principle "Believe whatever a witness tells you."

    Rather, the force of a witness's testimony depends upon the *surrounding circumstances*--such as what the witness would have to gain by lying and the like (I am reminded of a quote "where testimony that is given, even when giving such testimony will see you lose something or be in danger, can be the most powerful type"). Also, multiple witness testimony is rightly evaluated by deciding whether those witnesses were likely to be able to influence each other to tell a falsehood or whether it would be unlikely too.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JeremyOU)
    well you see most older copies of the bible have 15-20 extra sections, which were later removed (and don't feature in modern translations).
    these 'lost gospels' were removed by the catholic church about 1500 years ago because they were considered 'heretical'.
    For this reason there are few copies left, written in Greek (which the original bibles were also written in).
    The destruction of this 'heresy' was so extensive that most of what we now know about these manuscripts is references in other works.
    But can you tell me when it was thought to have been written?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    You can't convert to Judaism, you're either Jewish or you're not

    You have a choice between: Christianity, Buddhism and Islam. Islam would be the best imo but since you're not considering it, choose Christianity
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 8, 2015
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.