= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
shminux comments on Robert Aumann on Judaism - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (60)
If you believe http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/opinion/sunday/oliver-sacks-sabbath.html it was an emotional/aesthetic decision:
Seems quite rational to not deprive oneself of beauty.
I don't really understand this... "Impossible"?
Right, it really depends on the individual. It would probably be impossible for Robert Aumann to find it beautiful without being religious, but some people could.
"The observance of the Sabbath" makes no sense, and the ritual itself certainly isn't all that beautiful to an outsider.
He explains why he thinks it makes sense, namely that it is good for human beings to have a day off from time to time, and that people will be less likely to do this if they don't have a fairly strict rule about it. How does that not make sense?
Regarding the second thing, Aumann is not an outsider, so it is not relevant to his reasoning. He doesn't say anywhere in that interview anything like, "everyone should accept Judaism."
I did not say he was an outsider, just that the ritual would likely not be "extremely beautiful" to one, according to Aumann. Certainly a day of rest is generally a good thing, few people disagree. But useful and beautiful are not at all the same thing. His argument, as quoted, was completely backwards from the usual ones ("you have to observe Sabbath if you are Jewish"): "Sabbath ritual is beautiful, but one must be religious to observe it, so I better be religious". Whether he really thought that or not, I do not know.
Mordecai Kaplan would be unhappy to hear that commitment to ritual and tradition requires belief . Committing oneself to a hard line to avoid backsliding is justifiable without divine command theory.
I think the issue is not whether commitment to ritual -- as in, a commitment to go through the motions -- requires belief, it's whether experiencing ritual as beautiful requires belief. I think it's plausible that immersing oneself in the context of the ritual, including the requisite belief set, makes it far more meaningful and awe-inspiring. Merely aesthetic appreciation of ritual may not inspire the same depth of feeling as you would experience if every move in the ritual were wrought with spiritual significance for you.
So participating in the tradition without believing may also count as "depriving oneself of beauty". I wouldn't really know, though. I've been a non-believer my entire intellectually aware life, so I have no basis for comparison. I will say that I can't imagine any ritual or tradition driving me into the kind of frenzy you see at some charismatic Pentecostal churches, for instance. But I can't really imagine being driven to the kind of frenzy you see in the average audience for the The Price is Right either, so this may be an issue of personality rather than belief.
Yes, participating in a ritual without believing in it tends to make it feel less beautiful.