From: pdm@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu (peter d. mark)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: What is Jewish religion? (long...)
Date: 28 Jul 92 01:54:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.1992Jul28.015412.2021
Organization: University of Oregon Computer and Information Sciences Dept.

In article <LERNER.92Jul22135203@division.cs.columbia.edu> lerner@cs.columbia.edu (Michah Lerner) writes:

[michah lerner deleted the attribution of the following lines--they were
 written by daniel faigin.  please include appropriate attributions.]

>>>   Judaism is like a geometry. I believe that there are various axioms that
>>>   are the basis, for example:


>     Judaism is nothing like geometry.  

this much i agree with.  :-)

>     The Torah is given by HaShem.  Every letter and crown in it is 
>     absolute truth,  

evidence please?  after years of reading s.c.j and numerous other books
about judaism, i have yet to see a convincing demonstration of this.
after giving the matter much thought, it seems to me that the assertions
that the torah is god-given, or even that god exists at all, are not
propositions that can be proven by traditional methods of reasoning,
but must, to be accepted at all, be accepted as "axioms," i.e. beliefs
that must be accepted without proof.  one basic problem (among others)
is the fact that the only account of the giving of the torah is the
torah itself.  in other words, to marshal the torah as evidence of the
veracity of the torah's account of the events at sinai, requires one to 
believe, a priori, that the torah is correct in the first place.  but
this, of course, is circular reasoning.  orthodox jews with whom i have
discussed these questions invariably admit that they accept god's 
existence and the god-given nature of the torah purely *on faith*,
not reason or logic.


>     and we have the mission to
>     understand and practice it.   On the other hand, geometric axioms are
>     formed by man to express our observations about the world,  and may be
>     found incorrect.  Maybe the sum of the angles in a triangle is NOT 180.
            ~~~~~~~~~
>     Perhaps parallel lines DO intersect.  This is precisely why mathematics
>     is such a useful method for understanding the world model;  we can 
>     define the axioms and see what devlops. 

there is a basic misunderstanding here of what constitutes the 
"correctness" of mathematics.  in mathematics, propositions are
correct (within a given axiom system) if they follow logically from 
the axioms of that system.  different formal systems may have 
different axioms.  for example, euclid's fifth postulate, that through 
a point P not on a line L, there is a unique line M parallel to L, is 
true in euclidean geometry, but not in projective geometry (there is 
no such line) nor in hyperbolic geometry (there are many such lines).  
whether or not the "real world" is in fact governed by euclidean 
geometry or any of various non-euclidean geometries is completely 
irrelevant to the mathematical *truth* of these systems.  to a 
working mathematician, each axiom system gives rise to a set of 
propositions (theorems) that are deducible from it, and hence 
"true" in that system.  mathematical truth and physical reality 
are not the same, and should not be confused.

peter
pdm@cs.uoregon.edu
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish