Introduction: Don't be Intimidated!
Yes, this is a very lengthy post, but I think I get out a lot of thoughts here which might be helpful to others who think about Judaism. This post is so lengthy because it is going to comprise my main critique of the idea that Orthodox Judaism is a logical weltanschauung to adapt. It starts out with an attempted refutation of Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb's version of the Kuzari Principle (I know, I promised I wouldn't, but I couldn't stay away) as expounded in his lulu.com book, Living Up to the Truth. I'm stealing my main points from Reb Larry Tanner and Reb Gideon (with attributions though!), but they had whole series of posts on the Kuzari Principle, and this is for interested laypeople who might not properly sift through those entire series. Discussing the Kuzari Principle is important to me since it is the most utilized proof for Orthodox Judaism which I encounter. Of course, I also know Orthodox Jews who are wary of kiruv proofs like the Principle themselves; after discussing the Kuzari Principle, I'll shift into a discussion of the arguments the exponents of Rationalist Judaism give for frumkeit. Finally, inevitably, I am led by my dismissal of Rabbinic Judaism to ask "why be Jewish" and I will jot down my defense of being a Atheist Jew. I will not be discussing Reform and Conservative beliefs, as those not only aren't tenable to me, but also are rejected by the vast majority of the readership of this blog. Feel free to read this in chunks. Again though, I think people will find this post interesting, even if I have sacrificed concerns of brevity for concerns of content. Because it would've been such a shlepp to include accent codes and this isn't an academic project, I have omitted said codes.
Boilerplate, What's The Kuzari Principle?
According to Gottlieb, the Jews have a National Experiential Tradition (NET) from the Sinaitic revelation. What exactly is a NET? He gives us a good idea in Living Up, but I prefer his super-specific wording from elsewhere:
...The story must describe an event witnessed by a nation [In one version of this formulation, it apparently says "of at least 100,000." --BP]...The event must be one that would have created a national tradition...The believers included the nation composed of the descendants of those to whom the event was supposed to have occurred.
Now for Kuzari to be falsified, says Gottlieb, we must present a false NET. Why? According to him:
If the event did not take place...you cannot get people to believe in it.
Gottlieb expounds elsewhere:
THERE ARE NO KNOWN FALSE NET BELIEFS. If myth formation worked in the NET category there should be many NET beliefs that are known false, but there are none. So the evidence that we have of myth formation working is limited to cases that are not NET. The evidence we have is against myth formation applying to NET beliefs since if it did there should be many known false NET beliefs.
Myth formation doesn't apply to NETs. If a NET didn't happen, you couldn't get people to believe it. Ergo, the NET of the Sinaitic Revelation happened. The Torah is divinely authored by Hashem.
Critiquing Kuzari's Logic
Firstly, I should note that I'm calling it the Kuzari Principle because that's how it is known. But, and this is important, the Kuzari Principle isn't a principle; it's a hypothesis. Quoting Larry Tanner:
I would think something labeled as a "principle" would have many examples illustrating it. Kuzari is the only principle I can think of without such real-world instances. However, I could easily be persuaded to see Kuzari as a full-fledged principle: Just show me examples of nations that refused to believe NET stories which were introduced to them as real history.
This is an important point. Gottlieb's whole point is that people won't accept false NETs. But he hasn't demonstrated that with any examples at all. Messianic Jewish blogger Messianic Drew is right when he writes/says:
Since Gottlieb has a degree in philosophy and mathematical logic, I hope he also realizes that there is no such thing as proof by lack of counterexample. Not in mathematics, not in philosophy, not even in history. A theorem is not proved by failing to find a counterexample. Otherwise, theorems like Goldbach's conjecture or the continuum hypothesis should be considered proven. This goes for science as well. If I claimed that there can be no gold spheres larger than 20 feet in diameter, and claimed as my proof the fact that there are no counterexamples, I do not think anyone would accept that. Similarly, a historical hypothesis is not verified by a failure to find evidence against it.
So what we have here is an idea. Gottlieb speculates that false NET stories wouldn't be believed. But he has no false NET stories which weren't accepted to work off of!
From here, it's much easier to understand my perspective on this whole idea. The way I see it, Gottlieb puts us in a situation where we have two options.
The first option is that the Torah is what it looks like. It obsessively records irrelevant genealogies. It details ancient enemies of the tribe. It prescribes rules for normative living, which includes killing witches. It gives a natural history of the universe, which consists of a creation myth and then a Paradise before sin brings mankind to be cursed with living in a hard world (think Pandora's Box). It has a flood myth (evolution, on the other hand, doesn't show up). This is a very human document. Meanwhile, Nechemiah 8 seems to give us great reason for this interpretation. Ezra comes out to read to the people a "Sefer haTorah." In Nechemiah 8:14 and 8:17, the Jews hear of the concept of Sukkos for the first time and go out and do the mitzvahs, "for since the days of Joshua the son of Nun unto that day had not the children of Israel done so." Suddenly, the people hop in line and do what they're supposed to, despite never having heard from their parents anything about celebrating Sukkos. Clearly, the Jewish people in the time of Ezra were encountering a new text with a new message and were suddenly "reminded" of commandments that they and their ancestors had "forgotten."
The second option is that because Torah stories like Sinai fit Gottlieb's NET criteria, the Torah isn't what it looks like. It is authored by a Divine source and was given to us at Sinai, despite the fact that thorough and repeated searches for archaeological evidence have yielded nothing in the way of a mass desert wandering. While the Bible gave Chazal the impression that the sky is a dome, taka, the Bible is still a Divinely authored document and Chazal are the authoritative interpreters of how to interpret said document (although some would maintain not in science. But anyways, Gottlieb is a young earth creationist. According to him, Judaism's veracity proves that the universe is a bit under 6000 years old).
I'm down with the first option and I can't see how that's intellectually dishonest of me (or how I'm not "living up to the truth"). That's even if we can't find any nationally-believed NET myths which are false, which is what Gottlieb requires for the falsification of his principle. But I think we have found one.
The Aztecs
Gottlieb maintains that for his Principle to be falsified, we need to provide a NET myth with these conditions:
(1) The story must describe an event witnessed by a nation [In one version of this formulation, it apparently says "of at least 100,000." --BP]. (2) The event must be one that would have created a national tradition. (3) The story was in fact believed to be true. (4) The believers included the nation composed of the descendants of those to whom the event was supposed to have occurred.
AFAIK, Reb Gideon was the first to bring up the Aztecs -- referred to by many scholars during the period which will be under discussion as the Mexica -- as a counterexample to the Sinai miracle. There might be other valid miracles and feel free to bring those up in the comments, but I would like to here further explore this option's viability through the prisms of Gottlieb's criteria of a NET myth which would falsify the Kuzari Principle.
"(1)The story must describe an event witnessed by a nation [In one version of this formulation, it apparently says 'of at least 100,000.' --BP]"
The Aztecs believed that they were led out of their mythical (perhaps based on a real place) homeland of Atzslan by their god Huitzilopochtli. Through his priests, said deity led the Aztecs on a migratory journey. A number of miraculous events supposedly happened on this journey, but I would like to focus on some specific ones:
The Aztec continued moving from town to town...One day as they roamed the waters, they saw signs that had been prophesied by the Aztec priests. One was a beautiful, white bald cypress...and from the base of the tree a spring flowed. This spring was surrounded by all white willows. All around the water were white reeds and rushes, and white frogs emerged, as well as white snakes and fish... Soon after, Huitzilophochtili came to the priest...and told him Copril's heart, which was thrown into the lake as prescribed...had landed on a stone, and from that stone a nopal...sprang. The nopal was so grand...that an eagle perched there daily...It would be surrounded by beautiful and colorful feathers from the birds that the eagle fed on. The priest relayed this message to the people...Once more they went to the spring where they had seen the wonderful revelations of their god but were surprised to find two streams instead of one, and instead of white, one stream was red and the other was blue...the Aztec continued their search for the eagle perched on a nopal, which they soon beheld. (Aguilar-Moreno 144. See also Duran 28-32 and here.)
Everything turns white and the people see it. When the people come back to the spot, a white stream has split in two and changed colors. Then there's the fulfillment of a prophecy of the eagle landing on the opal. The above quoted text goes on to describe the founding of the Aztec city of Tenochtitlan as commemoration of the miracles; all of this supposedly happened in the 14th century.
Is there a nafka mina between these national revelations and the one at Sinai? Sure, Sinai had more people. The Aztecs were a wandering nation and a military power, but they weren't near 100,000...to say nothing of the numbers attributed to Sinai. But I haven't seen any mathematical logic demonstrating that I need larger numbers than the Aztecs have. If Gottlieb feels that he needs a certain number (e.g. 100,000; 600,000; 2,000,000), it is up to him to provide the justification for that number. Otherwise, I think the Aztec myth qualifies for the first criterion Gottlieb set up for a NET myth which would disprove the Kuzari Principle.
"(2) The event must be one that would have created a national tradition (3) The story was in fact believed to be true (4) The believers included the nation composed of the descendants of those to whom the event was supposed to have occurred."
These weren't mere stories told to children. Like many other religious cultures, the Aztecs really believed in their myths and said myths affected their culture:
Of all the migrant groups, the early history of the Mexica is the best known. The legends of their origins, travels, and adventures, and their various settlements and battles before founding Tenochtitlan are recounted in schoolbooks of Mexico today...[Some] scholars...regard the Mexica migration as a composite of stories assembled by a small tribe after arriving and intermarrying in the Valley of Mexico, since many motifs appear to have had a long earlier history among the urban peoples. Yet there can be no doubt that the legend was thought of as historical fact by the inhabitants of Tenochtitlan, just as the epic of Troy, the legendary travels of Aeneas, and the story of the founding of Rome were true historic events to the Roman population... this legendary history took root in the Mexica collective imagination, coloring their ideas, rites, and eventually affecting the fabric of their empire. (Townsend 57)
As part of this phenomenon, we see the myths being reflected in religious spaces. I'll give a few examples. When it came to the formerly white field, it was "the future irradiation center of the city and of Mexica domination" and "possessed presumably excellent avenues for contacting the supernatural" (Lujan 64). The myth of the waters which turned red and blue was reflected in Aztec mythology too; "later, these colors would characterize the Temples of Huitzilopochti and Tlaloc, respectively" (idem., 65).
Having shown, I believe, that the Aztecs had emunah in their myths and the myths had effects on the Aztec culture, I think I have shown that Gottlieb's criteria for the NET myth needed to debunk the Kuzari Principle have been fulfilled.
***
Boilerplate, Who are Rationalist Jews and What are Their Arguments?
The above refutation may be irrelevant to some Orthodox Jews. To understand why, it is necessary to understand a bit about their worldview.
Like other religious traditions, Orthodox Judaism has its less sophisticated -- antirationalist -- adherents and its more sophisticated -- rationalist -- adherents. Orthodox Jews who are in the latter category find it impossible to accept the contention maintained by so much of the haredi world that "the source of all the knowledge of the [Talmudic] Sages is either from Sinaitic tradition (received at the Giving of the Torah) or from Divine inspiration." These Jews, rather, tend to accept mode
rn scientific facts such as evolution. They can for now remain content to point to areas where haredim are obviously wrong and expound on their own understandings of how to understand Divrei Torah in light of what we know about the universe. Eventually though, the Bible itself will indeed have to be dealt with by Rationalist Jews or their children. What to say about Biblical criticism? How about the lack of archaeological finds of any mass Exodus? The famous Rationalist Jew who tried to deal with the very difficult questions surrounding the Bible's veracity felt a radical theological revolution to preserve the intellectual integrity of his community was necessary and it ended him quite outside of Orthodoxy; that figure, Louis Jacobs, should loom large in any speculation on the future of Rationalist Judaism.
The above refutation may be irrelevant to some Orthodox Jews. To understand why, it is necessary to understand a bit about their worldview.
Like other religious traditions, Orthodox Judaism has its less sophisticated -- antirationalist -- adherents and its more sophisticated -- rationalist -- adherents. Orthodox Jews who are in the latter category find it impossible to accept the contention maintained by so much of the haredi world that "the source of all the knowledge of the [Talmudic] Sages is either from Sinaitic tradition (received at the Giving of the Torah) or from Divine inspiration." These Jews, rather, tend to accept mode
rn scientific facts such as evolution. They can for now remain content to point to areas where haredim are obviously wrong and expound on their own understandings of how to understand Divrei Torah in light of what we know about the universe. Eventually though, the Bible itself will indeed have to be dealt with by Rationalist Jews or their children. What to say about Biblical criticism? How about the lack of archaeological finds of any mass Exodus? The famous Rationalist Jew who tried to deal with the very difficult questions surrounding the Bible's veracity felt a radical theological revolution to preserve the intellectual integrity of his community was necessary and it ended him quite outside of Orthodoxy; that figure, Louis Jacobs, should loom large in any speculation on the future of Rationalist Judaism.In short -- and certainly, this is an oversimplification -- these Orthodox Jews try to be religious and rationalists at the same time; they see a need to interpret the world around them using modern knowledge, but shelve some of the hard questions. While not having answers to the "big questions," they deal with some more measure of sophistication than young earth creationists. They have developed a sense of skepticism when it comes to claims from their other frum brethren regarding Orthodox Judaism's "proofs" and supposed requirements, but also have their own ideas about why one should be an Orthodox Jew. I will give three examples of Rationalist Jewish justifications of Judaism to demonstrate what I mean.
Elsewhere I have noted Marc Shapiro's rejection of proofs, alongside an acceptance of Jewish history as an indicator ("a sign") "of God's presence."
Rabbi Gil Student also rejects the kiruv proofs while approving of Jewish history as an "argument:"
I don't need to prove Judaism...I don't believe any single proof that I have seen for Judaism...The same old arguments...don't stand up to critical questioning. The closest thing that I have found to a proof, really more of an argument, is the existence of the Jewish people after thousands of years...I know, plenty of arguments can be given...Still, with all that considered, it is still quite amazing... More importantly, I am not an empiricist...Intuition and emotion are important methods that we all use in arriving at truth (see this post), even if we like to pretend that we are purely rational beings.
Similarly pointing to the beauty of Jewish history while rejecting proofs, Rabbi Slifkin writes:
...[In the comments at Cross-Currents] someone brought up the topic of the "Four Animal Proof." I responded that this alleged proof is deeply problematic, and I noted that we are better off teaching about the extraordinary nature of Jewish history and the value of a Torah lifestyle rather than marketing such “proofs.”
Asides from the wonders of Jewish history, there also seems to be a feeling among some Rationalist Jews that the wonders of the universe point to a God; hence, they sometimes utilize a modern teleological argument, emphasizing the miraculously fine-tuned universe and its laws.
Jewish History
The resilience of the Jewish people, as well as their influence on Western culture, is pretty amazing. Particularly, the return of the Jewish people to their ancestral land in the 20th century is extraordinary. Rav Soloveitchik eloquently expresses a wonder at God's modern miracles in Kol Dodi Dofek. But if we're going to examine Jewish history as a possible sign of Judaism's veracity, we have to look at all its facets. And in exploring Jewish history, we have no choice but to explore the question of theodicy. Why was a Holocaust necessary for the Chosen people? How can any amount of Heaven recompense that pain? What were the millions of murdered and the survivors doing in their previous gilgulim that could've possibly justified that? And that's just one mass event regarding the Jews. We can also point to individual and group tragedies and Darfur and really much of human history.
Rationalist Jews realize that "because God punished the Jews for not adhering to Torah ideology" isn't a good answer; a great spurning of this suggestion -- a suggestion made by the Satmar Rav and Rav Avigdor Miller among others -- is found in Rabbi Norman Lamm's "Face of God." Instead of the approach that evil is just punishment from God, let's look at Soloveitchik's more sophisticated approach in Kol Dodi Dofek:
Evil, which can neither be explained nor comprehended, does exist. Only if man could grasp the world as a whole would he be able to gain a perspective on the essential nature of evil. However, as long as man's apprehension is limited and distorted, as long as he perceives only isolated fragments of the cosmic drama and the mighty epic of history, he remains unable to penetrate into the secret lair of suffering and evil. To what may the matter be compared? To a person gazing at a beautiful rug, a true work of art, one into which an exquisite design has been woven--but looking at it from its reverse side. We are, therefore, unable to grasp the all-encompassing framework of being. And it is only within that framework that it is possible to discern the divine plan, the essential nature of the divine actions.
What Soloveitchik is in effect saying is that there is no answer to the question of theodicy. Evil exists but somehow, in a way we can't understand, God's work is benevolent. In other words, there is no good theodicy. I think this should cause us to reassess our view of Jewish history; evil is the antidote to the idea that Jewish history indicates there's a God. We do indeed see a rug; I see no reason for deluding ourselves into thinking there must a beautiful design on the other side.
The Fine-Tuned Universe
Many physicists agree that the universe looks like it's fine-tuned for life on our planet. It seems that would but one of the fundamental constants surrounding our universe be shifted even slightly, we wouldn't be here. There are a bunch of theoretical explanations of why this may be, but even if we were to somehow confirm other multiverses with alien worlds, people would still look at this world with a certain incredulity; while it certainly is possible that everything came into existence without a purposeful designer, it is difficult to fathom that it did. So some conclude from this that there is a God.
It just so happens that this argument is obviously an argument from personal incredulity. As such, I don't buy it. I understand though the incredulity which leads people to believe there must be some entity out there which isn't developed from the guided chance process of evolution, but created a universe in which evolved creatures would have purpose. There are IMHO logical issues with this outlook* but again, I understand the appeal. Granting that the entity exists (which I don't), let's call it The Rule-Breaker.
Yeah, that's right, not God -- The Rule Breaker. If there is a creator who breaks the empirical rules of science (e.g. evolution), you can't say anything about he/she/it because you're positing something which is beyond our comprehension.
Some might wish to argue that because the universe is so fine-tuned, it is clear that the Rule Breaker's will is beautiful. No dice. To quote James Randi:
I suggest that we might want to depose this incumbent God and start dealing with The Real World. He's proven — time and again — to be cruel, capricious, and vindictive. He drowns, crushes, burns, and starves millions of us every day. He created cancer, viruses, and germs to invade and destroy our bodies as He sees fit, and uses them very effectively. In His wisdom, He directed those in charge to impede stem cell research so that such a powerful approach would not be available to us and He wouldn't have to strain the Divine Intellect to disarm that defense. We amuse Him as we flail about vainly trying to appease Him. I vote that we dump Him.
Indeed.
Now, you might say that despite Randi's observations about the world, the universe is still fine-tuned for the existence of life (even if said lives were cut short by all of the factors Randi mentioned). Well, let's look at the universe. Indeed, as I noted earlier, it's fine-tuned. In fact, it's fine-tuned for a specific and obvious purpose: death. Forget global warming, the sun is eventually going to turn into a red giant and everybody and everything is going to die. So purpose does exist in the universe, but does it imply beauty or benevolence? Not so much. If you wish to be Agnostic or a Deist (in the sense that you believe there's at least one Rule-Breaker out there who/which could break the rules and create the universe), I can understand the sentiment...but realize that you can't say a thing about whatever you think may be out there.
Conclusion: My Defense of Being an Atheist Jew
I have attempted here to offer rebuttals to Gottlieb's Kuzari Principle as well as the main reasons Rationalist Jews give for their beliefs.
Of course there will always be more proofs, more reasons given for beliefs. I may write other pieces addressing some of those in the future. I chose to here address the ones which, either due to popularity or due to apparent strength, seemed most interesting to me. But in fact, I see no good reason to believe in metaphysical entities at all and thus am an atheist. Coming to this perspective was a journey which involved identities which need protecting, so I will not be telling the story here. I also see no need to write a piece which justifies atheism per se intellectually, as essays and books on the subject by people tons smarter than me abound. Why be an Atheist is a question oft addressed.
There is, however, the more interesting question of Why be Jewish? Not Orthodox, but Jewish, as in going to Jewish events, eating Jewish food, and hanging out with other Jews? Answer: Because I feel like it. Seriously. If I identify with a certain community, I'll hang out in that world. And yeah, that might not stick with my kids. But who cares? The important things in this world are life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (very, very broadly defined). Let them go after those three.
FOOTNOTE:
*The obvious question, which has been raised in the past, is with regards to the entity's purpose. In other words, if we all only have purpose thanks to some entity which breaks our rules (e.g. evolution), where did the entity come from and who gave it purpose? If life is so complex that it requires a designer, then wouldn't the designer himself require a purposeful naturalistic explanation as well? This challenge is known as Richard Dawkins' Ultimate Boeing 747 Gambit (I have obviously simplified it and explained it according to my understanding). One may attempt to answer Dawkins by saying that the entity -- being special and unlike anything else in our universe -- is the purpose-giver and is not logically required to have purpose itself; but the purpose-giver itself then has the purpose of giving purpose! Alternatively, one may attempt to answer Dawkins by saying that we don't know the answer to his question, but we ought to prefer this entity to a naturalistic explanation, which is counterintuitive; admittedly -- according to such a believer -- we don't understand why the entity isn't required to itself have been given purpose by yet another entity. A problem I have with this non-answer is that if we have problems with both naturalistic explanations and a creator explanation, it seems that Occam's Razor would dictate that we stick to dealing with the problems of naturalistic explanations, as opposed to giving us the additional problem of a creator who lacks philosophical justification. UPDATE -- I see Carl Sagan says like me, see 0:00 to 1:12 of the following video:
Great post on a wide range of topics. Kudos!
ReplyDeleteCouple of Points need to be made:
ReplyDelete1) The fact that there are no counter-examples is VERY important, and it's surprising that you and messianic drew miss it. If there are no counter-examples, that means you can't be SURE that the evidence we are presenting is fallible. Similarly, if we were both standing at the falling of the manna, and you would claim "we are both hallucinating," I would be right to respond, "can you please show me a counter-example of where we two guys hallucinated?" The lack of counter-examples means, in fact, that nationally-commemorated history is EQUALLY reliable to our own visual perceptions, since both have never been wrong.
2)How do you know that there were even 100,000 Azteks on the march?
3)Yes, the Azteks believed that they were on a journey. But how do we know they believed in the miracles that happened along the way, especially when one scholar explicitly states that they "revised their history;" meaning, that when they wrote about the miracles, they knew it was false, kinda like if I write a story about the golem of prague despite the fact that I don't neccesarily believe that there was really a golem (I happen to have no position on whether there was a golem of not, I am just using it to make a point).
4) How do you know that the Aztek's believed that the journey was heavily commemorated from the time of the journey and forward?
5) Why do you assume that when God said the "flood story," he wasn't lying to us in order to teach us a greater lesson? See, if God would say, "eating copious amounts of salt is healty" that would be God is telling us a lie which can have negative consequences. But regarding the flood, why do you assume that he wasn't lying? Alternatively, how do you know that God didn't cover us his tracks. INDEED, HE WOULD HAVE A GOOD REASON TO COVER UP HIS TRACKS. If the scientific data would match the Torah's account in parshas breishis and noach, what would be left of Judaism? What would be the point of pesach, where WE testify that God performed miracles. What would be the point of Shabbos, where we testify that God made the world in seven days?
6) The Torah could not have been written in the times of Nechemian, since the Samaritans split off from Judaism midway through the First-Temple era (II Kings 17), and they have the same Torah that we do.
> Many physicists agree that the universe looks like it's fine-tuned for life on our planet. It seems that would but one of the fundamental constants surrounding our universe be shifted even slightly, we wouldn't be here.
ReplyDeleteIf things were different, things would be different. The Anthropic Principle comes up all the time. I think it’s silly. It’s only profound if you assume that we are the purpose of the universe, and so the universe was built around us and perfectly balanced to allow us to be here. If we evolved to fit the current conditions, then pointing out that we fit the current conditions is almost a tautology.
> INDEED, HE WOULD HAVE A GOOD REASON TO COVER UP HIS TRACKS. If the scientific data would match the Torah's account in parshas breishis and noach, what would be left of Judaism? What would be the point of pesach, where WE testify that God performed miracles. What would be the point of Shabbos, where we testify that God made the world in seven days?
Judaism is a set of rules for living the way that God wishes us to live, no? It is NOT about having faith in God as an end in itself. That would be Protestant Christianity. The point of Shabbos would be dedicating a day to God, and commemorating (not “testifying” about) creation. The point of Pesach would be commemorating the miracles God did, the birth of the Jewish nation, and the giving of the Torah.
I really don’t see the problem.
Many of your conclusions don't have support from your text.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, the Kuzari principle is frequently misused by both pro and anti-kiruv types. The Kuzari principle presupposes both a belief in God and that He has a desire for a chosen nation/religion in this world. Given those assumptions, it is more logical to accept a mass revelation (Judaism) than a private one (the other two big monotheistic religions). Absent those assumptions the proof is useless. Therefore your debating Gottleib on this point is useless since he is misusing the principle in the first place.
2) "This is a very human document". Says who? Based on what, other than personal opinion? I could just as easily say "this is a document written for humans to understand and in a fashion they would appreciate". Indeed, that's what Chazal say over and over, that the Torah is written in the language of men.
3)Archeological evidence has yielded nothing - to date, there have been no positive finds that contradict any Biblical narrative. At best there is absence of proof but there is no proof of absence. Meanwhile there is a 3500 year old tradition that the events described happen. If you want to disprove them conclusively, you have to come up with something better than "We haven't found Moshe's credit card receipts" yet.
4) Judaism's veracity proves a young Earth - no it doesn't. Just so's you know.
5) The NET event cannot be viewed in isolation. No, we're not the only people to claim a national revelation witnessed by "the masses" but the revelation isn't the be all and end all of Jewish belief. There is also a matter of predicting the future which the Torah has done quite accurately, in terms of repeated exile and national rebirth. Where are the Aztecs today? Were they promised eternal national existence at their NET? Was their end at the hands of the Spaniards predicted by their NET? It is this that makes Judaism different from other NET peoples. The events predicted at the NET all occured throughout history including our survival despite all sorts of opposition.
ReplyDelete5) Your challenges to rationalist Orthodox Jews don't hold water. Rationalism as a method of Jewish religious thought has a long and proud tradition that only in the last few decades became "assur" through a process of historical revisionism by the Chareidi community. The documentary hypothesis has been repeatedly and thoroughly refuted by Orthodox scholars to the point that now DH proponents can only defend their views in a discussion by first announcing that all opposing points of view are ab initio disqualified since they're opposing points of view. As for archeology, the weight of existing evidence validates many narratives in the Bible and as I noted about there is no evidence to the contrary. It would be foolish to think there is nothing else hidden in the ground. More proof will come forward.
6) It is given these days that the universe began with a Big Bang. Something had to create that event. Judaism defines that creator as God. If you believe there was a Big Bang and that it had to come from something, you believe in God. You might argue that He didn't do the stuff the Bible claims He did but if you deny God, then you have to make up stuff like previous universes that contracted or "matter from nothing" theories to explain the Big Bang in a far less satisfactory fashion. At any rate, Rationalist Judaism has dealt with the hard questions and quite well but because the anti-Jewish position is that it can't, those answers are either ignored or rejected.
7) Why was a Holocaust necessary for the Chosen people? Why indeed? Can I know the mind of God, or why He chose this event or that to occur in history? As the Rav noted, we cannot know all the answers. The atheoskeptic assumes there is no answer, the believer says it's beyond us. But it is presumptive arrogance to assume that if you can't figure it out, there must be no answer.
8) James Randi's thinking is typical of the one-sided approach thart so many attack God with. Sickness, war, wow what a terrible job God is doing. Beautiful flowers, good health, the smile of a baby, suddenly he forgets about God. He only sees God in suffering and ignores him when things go well, much like a spoiled child always complains about what his parents didn't do for him and misses all the good stuff. Randi's position is more about emoitional immaturity than responsible thinking.
In short, you really haven't proven anything other than you don't believe in God and everything else flows from that. You still hang out with us because you like the food. Well that's nice but it isn't the deepest approach to your current issues.
> The documentary hypothesis has been repeatedly and thoroughly refuted by Orthodox scholars<
ReplyDeleteRav Chaim Heller and Rav Dovid Zvi Hoffmann tried. Here is what Prof. Shnayer Z. Leiman said of their efforts: “Some well-meaning Orthodox defenders of the faith delight in repeating the canard that through the heroic efforts of Rabbis David Hoffmann and Hayyim Heller, the death knell was sounded for the documentary hypothesis decades ago….Nothing could be further from the truth.” And, “The documentary hypothesis is alive and well, not dead and buried.” (From Modern Scholarship and the Study of Torah, S. Carmy, ed., 1996)
Rav Breuer—the foremost frum expert in chumash of the 20th century—held that the insights of the DH are correct, and the Torah gives the appearance of being a text written by multiple human authors.
BTW, the Orthodox RCA journal Tradition recently published an article that admitted that the Torah’s flood story was a myth borrowed from the pagan Epic of Gilgamesh. They were forced to do this by mountains of evidence from many disciplines, all showing that there was no such flood. The Torah is the product of humans. God—if HE had written the Torah—would not have needed to borrow from pagan mythology.
Abele:
ReplyDelete1) The void of counterexamples, if we grant there's a void (which I don't), just means the Torah myth is somewhat different than others. But because there's interaction with a divine being involved -- a sort of interaction which has never been shown to be reliable (to use your terminology) -- there's no reason to assume that this event is just as reliable as our own eyes. And our visual perceptions have been shown to be wrong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeUPCPRgVHU
2) There weren't. Please reread more carefully.
3) But how do we know they believed in the miracles that happened along the way, especially when one scholar explicitly states that they "revised their history;" meaning, that when they wrote about the miracles, they knew it was false, -- This is what I maintained happened with the Torah too, the history was rewritten by the Redactor. So your kashe doesn't stand. But because I'm interested, what's your source? (I was using Brandeis library books for this project and because we're on break now, the library's closed and I can't access them for now)
4) Wrote about this in the essay.
5) But regarding the flood, why do you assume that he wasn't lying? -- Could be. Perhaps he lied with kol hatorah kulah. And about being perfect and everything.
6) I know Bible scholars like R.E. Friedman know about the Samaritan Pentateuch, but I'll look into it. My point was that Ezra did something, not necessarily that he was the major Redactor (as at this point, some scholars maintain that there was a succession of redactors).
Garnel:
1) I'm dealing with Gottlieb because a lot of people I've met for some reason think of him like the Metatron -- right next to God. That's not necessarily a judgment on him, it's just how people talk about him.
2) Slavery? Witches? Homophobia? Giving over a timeless message with these ideas? I mean, yes, we could say it's still from God. I just don't see a necessity to do that.
3) But that many people, with a God-given record of where they went and where they came to, surely that would've left some evidence?
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2004/12/Did-The-Exodus-Really-Happen.aspx
4) In this essay, I was just stating Gottlieb's opinion.
5a) I see the prophecies as a separate raiya. Oddly enough, while Gottlieb sees prophecies as really important raiyas, they're hardly ever brought up to me (actually I can't think of a single instance when the prophecies generally have been brought up to me).
5b) The documentary hypothesis has been repeatedly and thoroughly refuted by Orthodox scholars -- I disagree with you and I hold like the late Rav Mordechai Breuer that it certainly looks like it was humanly authored by multiple people.
6) Wrote about this in the essay.
7&8) When considering whether there is a God, I think it's important to consider all of the evidence. If we had overwhelming evidence that the Bible's worldview was true [a 14th century Torah scroll, bodies which had lived hundreds of years, the veracity of flood geology, rabbis flying around on kabbalistic carpets], we could maybe overlook the whole evil thing. Being that people try to use the amazingness of history as an argument, we have to look at the evils of history as part of that argument. Evil dings against using history as a argument.
In short) As Nachum Lamm once noted, I'm young. I don't have the unmitigated chutzpah to think I can have the deepest approach at my age.
***
Ftr, I initially made a comment before Mendy put up his, but I wanted to correct some grammatical errors, so I deleted that one and I'm replacing it with this one.
[a 14th century Torah scroll...]
ReplyDelete14th century BC is what I meant...sigh, today's not off to a good start...
1. Yes, some vision perceptions have been shown to be wrong. I meant extended visual perceptions by millions of people. Regarding the Sinai history being different, you missed the entire point. Every myth is different. I am not saying believe the Jewish myth since it;s the only one that involves people who are circumcised, or people who enjoy gefilte fish.
ReplyDeleteThe point is that the evidence that we are presenting, nationally-commemorated history, has never shown itself to be fallible. Why do you assume that it is fallible?
2) Your invoking of the Torah's redactors is stunningly irrelevant. The issue, right now, is if any Aztec's believed that miracles took place. Although some records written in the 1500s do claim that the nation saw miracles, the question is whether anyone actually believed these records or if, in fact, those who wrote it wrote their OWN version of revisionist history, which no one took seriously. The scholars suggest that the latter is true. Whether the Torah had a redactor or not isn't relevant. The fact is that people, millions of people, believe in the story mentioned in the Torah.
3) You never discussed in your essay about commemorations which were initiated from the time of the miracles and forward. You spoke about blue buildings, but we don't know when those commemorations were established. Jews, for example, commemorate Moses' death by fasting on the 7th of Adar. But this commemoration doesn't interest me, since I have no way of knowing when this commemoration was believed to have been initiated.
4) The Torah didn't lie about other things. The Torah promised that the jews would conquer Israel, would eventually be exiled, would survive forever, would have an everlasting priesthood, and would have an everlasting Sabbath. If these IMPORTANT facts all came true, then I see that I can trust God. EVEN IF THERE WAS NEVER A FLOOD (as you argue, but I vehemently disagree), you still have no reason to assume that God would lie about IMPORTANT facts.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAbele,
ReplyDeleteBlogger has enabled this automatic spam detection and flagged your comment, which is why it didn't go up immediately.
1) I don't know how many events have been claimed to be in the category you're talking about, having been witnessed by millions of people. Without a proper sample of data, we can't say that this is hard evidence for an event happening. Furthermore, postulating a supernatural explanation is the sort of claim which has been proven fallible, so we'd need examples of NETs with supernatural causation by God or the Sitra Acher to substantiate that this type of event has never been proven false. Furthermore, the sort of evidence we have against a mass exodus and arrival in Israel (http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2004/12/Did-The-Exodus-Really-Happen.aspx) has never been proven fallible.
2) which no one took seriously. The scholars suggest that...is true. -- I have seen sources that the leadership finagled with the history, which is what happened with the Jews too (because that's how history used to be made, with a dose of blending myth). But that the Aztec people didn't believe these events happened, this I haven't seen (and I looked at a lot of books and primary sources). In fact, all of the important major sources which discuss the matter that I've seen maintain that they did believe these miracles.
3) The founding of the city and the belief that the white area was sacred were commemorations, the first of the miraculous journey's end and the second of the sacred space's power.
4) Incidentally, I would think a global flood and wiping out everybody in the world is pretty important. Okay, so in this schema he wasn't lying about kol hatorah kula. I wonder what qualifies as worth lying about.
1. That there is evil in the world hardly proves that God doesn't exist. You might be able to say that you don't like what God has done, that you don't understand it, that you don't see how it fits with the idea of a just God, etc. Not liking what God did is very different from showing that God doesn't exist. BTW, you're not exactly the first person to come up with this stunning revelation that there is evil in the world. I think Job may have touched on this a bit. As do the Psalms. As does Abraham in arguing with God about Sodom and Gemorrah. As have Jewish sages for thousands of years. The conclusion that evil in the world means that God does not exist is only one of many possible conclusions. You can say that this is the conclusion that you've chosen to adopt, and that although not at all conclusive, it does give you the excuse to be the atheist you want to be. At least be honest about it, though.
ReplyDelete2. The existence of the Shoah, or any other of the terrible events in Jewish history, does not change the fact that the sweep of Jewish history is quite remarkable, and does not fit into any historical theory. By invoking the Holocaust card, you've just dodged the issue - you haven't explained away the historical argument at all.
3. I suppose "because I want to" is as ok a reason as any to be a secular Jew. You don't have to claim any purpose in being Jewish. However, the minute one says that he just likes hanging out with Jewish people, etc., that does begin to sound just a tad racist. If one of my Christian friends said he prefers to hang out with other Christians because they have more common ground and they share more common values, thus more of a basis for a relationship - that's not particularly problematic. But if my Christian friend says he just prefers hanging out with white people more because they're more like him, that's a problem. To say I'm part of the Jewish community because that's how we achieve our communal purpose to be a light to the nations is one thing. To say I just prefer being with Jews over others is just as bad as white people who would rather not associate with black people.
4. I've seen all the atheist arguments - Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. Some are very easily dismissed, some less so. However, in the end, an atheist cannot really prove anything. The best you can do is to say that it is possible that God does not exist - and there are then many good counterarguments to that notion. But you cannot say that you KNOW that God exists. To do so is to substitute an atheist Orthodoxy (fundamentalism?) for you former religious Orthodoxy. In reality, since you can only try to poke holes in the other side's arguments and can't state anything about your own views with certainty, your atheism is really just another act of faith (you BELIEVE there is no God) - it could be a reasoned faith arrived at after much study and thought, but an act of faith nonetheless. For me, there are just so many things about the world that the atheist view can't explain, that I would be hard pressed to have enough "faith" to become an atheist.
ReplyDeleteWelcome Harold and thanks for reading.
ReplyDelete1) I never said evil proves there's no God.
2) I don't know that it doesn't fit into any anthropological theories. Yes, Jewish history is amazing. It's why I became frum in the first place. But what's so amazing about it is the Jews' resilience against hester panim.
3) I don't prefer hanging out with Jews more than other people. Growing up, I never hung out with Jews. I tried this whole semester to get the Brandeis Humanists active and avoided Hillel. But now I see I need to be part of a community, however tangentially. That's all there is to it: there's a community which is somewhat accepting.
4. But you cannot say that you KNOW that God exists. -- you mean, of course, that he doesn't exist. But we never said that we "KNOW." You wrote that you've "seen all the atheist arguments..." No offense, but I have to wonder if that's true. Have you read the books of the New Atheists you mention on this topic? I ask because -- and Dawkins is most articulate on this point -- many atheists don't claim to "KNOW" that God doesn't exist. We just say there's no good reason to think he does. Dawkins is in this camp.
1) The issue, the sole issue, with the Aztecs is whether the population actually believed that miracles took place. All the Aztecs have gone extinct, so we really have no way of knowing what they believed. Jews still exist, and when you will ask them, they will say we believe that the sinia events are true.
ReplyDeleteThere is one way through which we can infer what the aztecs believed - their writings. The problem - the one I mentioned - is that their writing contadict each other in the central facts and were revised versions. That means that we have no way of knowing whether the aztecs believed it.
2) The existence of a city is not a commemorations. Everyone has cities.
3) I am not saying that the sinia events were supernatural. All I saying is that the see split, manna fell for forty years, and that a loud voice was heard on the mountain. If you want to call it supernatural, that's youre choice. You can call it a freak accident, if that sits better with you. In other words, once we have powerful evidence for certian events, any events, we trust it. We don't need other reports of "miracles" in order to substantiate that the events took place.
4) I am not claiming that God lied about the flood. All I am saying is that EVEN IF HE LIED, how is a flood something important? How will I change my day based on the knowledge that there actually was a flood? The flood story is not relevant to my life, regarding whether it happened or not (as the Ramban says (I forgot the exact quote) "there is no need for us to know that creation, flood, or tower of bavel stories." That would also mean that there is no difference whether they are actually true or not.
> does not change the fact that the sweep of Jewish history is quite remarkable, and does not fit into any historical theory.
ReplyDeleteWhat is a historical theory? Something like Marx’s dialectic? Jewish history, while extraordinary, can be understood without resorting to supernatural explanations. The unusual aspect of Jewish history is that a people maintained a distinct culture and religion while surrounded and oppressed by the majority culture. It is likely that the oppression is itself what allowed Jewish culture to survive. In the two hundred something years since the ghetto walls came down, one of the most pressing issue in the Jewish world has been assimilation.
It’s certainly possible that the persecution was orchestrated by Hashem to maintain the Jewish people’s identity, but that paints Him as rather Machiavellian, no?
> However, in the end, an atheist cannot really prove anything.
That’s the beauty of it. We don’t have to prove anything. The burden of proof is on the one making the positive claim. I don’t have to prove there is no god, any more than I have to prove there are no unicorns or leprechauns. It’s certainly possible that there are unicorns somewhere, but until there’s positive proof, we’re all justified in assuming that unicorns are mythological creatures. The same holds true for gods.
> For me, there are just so many things about the world that the atheist view can't explain,
Like what? What is there that demands as an explanation an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent Being Who takes an active interst in humanity, handed down the Torah on Har Sinia, guides human history, and has a special place in His heart for each and every Jew?
Baruch,
ReplyDeleteI don't think at all that Jewish history is amazing because of survival in the face of hester panim. At least for me, if there's not something going on behind the scenes, then our being here given our history defies logic. I think many people would say that the main point is that God's face is present in the grand sweep of Jewish history. You're free to disagree, but I think that is the point.
Regarding Dawkins et al., perhaps I wasn't clear on this point. I didn't say that many of these people prove or try to prove that God doesn't exist. Simply that an atheist (and yes, Dawkins, as you describe, reinforces this) really can't do more than say he doesn't have irrefutable proof of His existence. So the atheist, in the end, is choosing to believe that God doesn't exist, lacking specific proof for his belief even as he claims that the religious person lacks sufficient proof for his belief. In that sense, the atheist is flying on faith just as much (or moreso).
My response about being with Jewish people was based on your saying, "Why be Jewish? Not Orthodox, but Jewish, as in going to Jewish events, eating Jewish food, and hanging out with other Jews? Answer: Because I feel like it. Seriously. If I identify with a certain community, I'll hang out in that world"
As I read again, you didn't actually say you prefer being with Jews. But I would still question why go out of your way specifically to hang out with Jews. If it's just a tribal thing, then it still isn't any different than a white guy saying, "I just feel like hanging out with other white people," even if he sometimes hangs out with black people too. I'm just saying that, absent a religious imperative, seeking out "your own kind" becomes questionable.
G*3,
ReplyDeleteIf you read the literature, historians do have theories as to why peoples/civilizations survive and why they disappear. Among other things, historians look at things like having their own land, having a shared language, and several others. Jews for 2,000 years (until coming back to Israel) had none of these things. Virtually every other people that lacked these things died out. From an historical viewpoint, there is no explanation that fits in the boxes. There was a famous debate in the (I think) 1950s with the world-renowned historian Arnold Toynbee, in which he called Judaism a "fossil religion." People were shocked, but Toynbee had to resort to name calling because as an historian, he couldn't come up with a good reason for why the Jews are still here.
As for proving there is no God, if you say there's no God, then there's a lot in the world you do have to account for (and saying that there's evil in the world just sidesteps the issue - it's no answer). All I'm saying, as I said to Baruch, is that you are flying on faith every bit as much or moreso than the religious person that you deride. You believe that there is no God. Or to put it in positive terms (since you believe you don't have to prove a negative), you believe the world happened by accident, that events are random, etc. - these are my characterizations, you may have different ones - but prove it. Prove that the world happened through a series of random occurrences. Good luck.
Harold,
ReplyDeleteA) I haven't been through the anthropological surveys of world cultures. I imagine the Jews come up and anthropological theories have developed since Toynbee's death in 1975.
Let's imagine momentarily that you're right and Jewish history is an exception to the rule. It means there's an exception to a rule, it doesn't imply a God. Actually, we have a problem with this view of history. If God wanted to have a special relationship with the Jews and they historically and traditionally claim to have a text from him, we should assume that there's nothing wrong, ethically or historically, in this text. It's Divine. I think it's a davar pashut that the divine spirit left a lot of bad information in his books, information based on surrounding cultures. It's not just that we don't have irrefutable proof, it's that all things considered, the world doesn't look like there was a god involved (and in particular it doesn't look like the biblical theisms are right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M4i0mwBuoM ).
B) I went out of my way to not hang out with Jews this semester. Only after advise from professors and a higher-up -- at the end of the semester -- did I realize I need to be involved in some sort of community. Believe me, if the Brandeis Humanists and the Anime Club were more active, I wouldn't see it necessary to do things by Hillel.
C) Incidentally, the idea that an atheist and a theist both have equal amounts of faith, which I reject, never seemed to me to much help the theist. It only creates an eilu vi-eilu framework. It means that the theist should be accepting of my choice. Some sophisticated Christians (IIUC Allister Mcgrath) take this view. Judaism doesn't look favorably on the kofer, the apikorus.
rhetorical question: why do I always spell Allister with two "l's?" Just seems right.
ReplyDeleteAnywho...
> Prove that the world happened through a series of random occurrences.
ReplyDeleteEvents appear to be random (within the confines of physics, chemistry, etc.). Therefore in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to accept that events are random. Which again leaves the burden of proof on the theist.
And as Baruch pointed out, by claiming that atheism is faith-based you’re at most putting it on an equal footing with religion. What makes your faith-based claim better than anyone else’s? I find it interesting that most skeptics admit that it is possible (though they may think it very improbable) that they’re wrong, while most theists know with absolute certainty that God exists and that their particular religion is the One True Faith.
Re Jewish survival:
ReplyDeleteI call this the “cockroach theory of Jewish survival.” Scientists tell us that cockroaches are tremendously resilient. That they’ve been around for millions of years, and could even survive a nuclear winter. Almost nothing can wipe them out.
Must be favored by God, then?
No. The secret of the Jews’ survival is that they possess the Torah—the greatest book ever written by men—and they believe it to have been written by God, and interpret all events using that prism. That is the main reason for their survival. Anti-semitism, and the consequent banding together for survival, are the other ingredients.
That’s all.
Baruch, G*3, and Mendy (and this will be my last post, as I don't think any of us will be well served by a continued dialogue of the deaf),
ReplyDelete-the fact that we find a flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh, or similar structures to the legal codes in contemporaneous cultures can mean a lot of things - some of these were noted by Chazal and some not. The flood story is a good example - Nahum Sarna's book on Genesis (written from an academic rather than an Orthodox viewpoint) does a very good job comparing the two (and while new research has come to light since Sarna's time, his basic points are still sound) - they are similar in some ways, and different in other, very critical ways. The fact that so many ancient cultures have a flood story could very reasonably point to their origins in a common story/event, rather than saying that the flood story must be a myth because the Epic of Gilgamesh also has one. For every similarity you can name, there are massive critical differences that are hard to credibly explain away.
-I can accept your argument, up to a point, that saying the atheist is acting on faith puts him on an equal footing. That's part of my point. Atheists (and the comments here bear this out) tend to portray themselves as adhering to a world view born of reason and intellect, and unshackled from the biases of religion (no doubt, making the atheist much smarter than the religious person). But the atheist has chosen to believe certain things and ignore others. They have adopted a world view at least as much as any system of reasoning - that world view does not always allow for claims that conflict with it. They have every right to their beliefs, but we also have the right to question them, not agree with them, and find holes in your reasoning, just as we might with any other faith system. That's not intolerance - that's just healthy skepticism. And no - my experience with the majority of atheists I've met is that they are just as "fundamentalist" in their beliefs as the worst religious fundamentalist (no doubt, they have difficulty seeing themselves that way - they just assume they are right).
Mendy - Your comment makes no sense to me. Jews still exist because they believed and acted like a really great book was written by God, though it was really written by men? Ok, so if the Jews followed Shakespeare's plays as Divinely written, that would have ensured their survival? You can't get much better than Shakespeare. What about if they had done so with Greek and Roman myths - they do have many great life lessons. The Tibetan Book of the Dead? (and it doesn't work to say we don't know if they would have survived with the Tibetan Book of the Dead, etc. because it hasn't been tested - that's just being coy). No, the Jews survived on the Torah because there is something intrinsically in it that enabled them to survive, something that doesn't exist in any other work that is man-made (another random event that is simply an exception, I suppose).
Baruch, G*3, and Mendy (and this will be my last post, as I don't think any of us will be well served by a continued dialogue of the deaf),
ReplyDelete-the fact that we find a flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh, or similar structures to the legal codes in contemporaneous cultures can mean a lot of things - some of these were noted by Chazal and some not. The flood story is a good example - Nahum Sarna's book (written from an academic rather than an Orthodox viewpoint) does a very good job comparing the two (and while new research has come to light since Sarna's time, his basic points are still sound) - they are similar in some ways, and different in other, very critical ways. The fact that so many ancient cultures have a flood story could very reasonably point to their origins in a common story/event, rather than saying that the flood story must be a myth because the Epic of Gilgamesh also has one.
-I can accept your argument, up to a point, that saying the atheist is acting on faith puts him on an equal footing. That's part of my point. Atheists (and the comments here bear this out) tend to portray themselves as adhering to a world view born of reason and intellect, and unshackled from the biases of religion (no doubt, making the atheist much smarter than the religious person). But the atheist has chosen to believe certain things and ignore others. They have adopted a world view at least as much as any system of reasoning - that world view does not always allow for claims that conflict with it. They have every right to their beliefs, but we also have the right to question them, not agree with them, and find holes in your reasoning, just as we might with any other faith system. That's not intolerance - that's just healthy skepticism. And no - my experience with the majority of atheists I've met is that they are just as "fundamentalist" in their beliefs as the worst religious fundamentalist (no doubt, they have difficulty seeing themselves that way - they just assume they are right).
(continued)
ReplyDeleteMendy - Your comment makes no sense to me. Jews still exist because they believed and acted like a really great book was written by God, though it was really written by men? Ok, so if the Jews followed Shakespeare's plays as Divinely written, that would have ensured their survival? You can't get much better than Shakespeare. What about if they had done so with Greek and Roman myths - they do have many great life lessons. The Tibetan Book of the Dead? (and it doesn't work to say we don't know if they would have survived with the Tibetan Book of the Dead, etc. because it hasn't been tested - that's just being coy). No, the Jews survived on the Torah because there is something intrinsically in it that enabled them to survive, something that doesn't exist in any other work that is man-made (another random event that is simply an exception, I suppose).
-G3-I don't agree with you - I can point to thousands of things that don't seem random at all, or at least would seem very strange if they really were random. I think it takes a great deal of faith to believe that every single thing around you is random - sorry to say, I can't muster the same amount of faith as you can, in that respect.
Which is really what this all comes down to - you can look at the world as a creation with a Creator or you can look at the world as random. Either side can muster arguments for what they believe. And either side can choose to see things in line with their beliefs (my disagreement with Baruch about Jewish history is a perfect example - one can choose to just see it as an exception without any particular meaning, or not; one can choose to look at the return of the Jewish people to a sovereign state after almost 2,000 years as something that just kind of happened as yet another random event that is an exception for no particular reason - or not).
You've chosen to look at the world through one set of glasses - and that is your right. But please - the rest of us are not quite so dumb that we think you're doing anything other than looking through another set of glasses that highlight some things and pointedly ignore others.
Well, thanks for giving us the last word Harold. You've been generally respectful [although I think you might be trying to get a rise out of us repeating how you don't have as much faith as we do ;) ] and I appreciate your commenting here.
ReplyDelete--rather than saying that the flood story must be a myth because the Epic of Gilgamesh also has one.: I for one don't maintain that. It's a myth for a lot of reasons. The story may very well have been based on an initial pre-Sumerian flood or something, I haven't looked into it that much. But the Bible's account of a global flood clearly didn't happen when the Bible maintains it happened and is clearly based on -- and probably in dialogue with -- older accounts including the Epic.
You wrote about skepticism. We must be skeptical of the claim that the Bible has the qualities of a Divine text (I actually would disagree with Mendy that it's the greatest book written by men, even as Mendy and I agree that it was clearly written by men. I agree with you, you don't get much better than Shakespeare!). The onus is clearly on the believer here.
--(no doubt, making the atheist much smarter than the religious person): I don't maintain that either. You do have the right to question us, not agree with us, and find holes in our reasoning. But we have the right to not find your questions, disagreements, and alleged holes convincing (even if in the eyes of a frum person, that makes us "fundamentalists."). I still don't think this answers my point about Judaism's view of the apikorus or the kofer.
--the rest of us are not quite so dumb that we think you're doing anything other than looking through another set of glasses that highlight some things and pointedly ignore others -- Sounds like now we atheists are the stupid ones and you believers are the smart ones!
Anyways, I would agree with G*3. The point of my footnote was to point to logical problems with the view that there is a god. And if you say, well, but look at how cool Jewish history is...but what are you asking us to accept due to the alleged coolness of Jewish history (and remember, I haven't granted that Jewish history falls outside anthropological theories as you wrote)? .What we're asked to accept usually has something to do with propositions which are untenable. You can ask the question, "What's the point of Jewish history" but you clearly will have answers in mind. And our only question is if those answers are convincing.
> The fact that so many ancient cultures have a flood story could very reasonably point to their origins in a common story/event, rather than saying that the flood story must be a myth because the Epic of Gilgamesh also has one.
ReplyDeleteThe common event the flood stories point to probably is the tendency of ancient cultures to build settlements near water, which sometimes overflowed. The story can be classified as a myth not because it appears in the Epic of Gilgamesh, but because of the implications of it being true. There is no genetic bottleneck five thousand years ago, no geological evidence of a world-wide flood, and no explanation for how large animals crossed the oceans to the Americas and Australia or for why different species are found exclusively in certain parts of the world.
> Atheists (and the comments here bear this out) tend to portray themselves as adhering to a world view born of reason and intellect, and unshackled from the biases of religion (no doubt, making the atheist much smarter than the religious person).
Not at all. I don’t think I’m free of biases, or that I’m smarter than religious people (well, smarter than some, not as smart as others).
What it is is a difference of epistemology. The skeptic (ideally) bases conclusions on evidence, while religious apologists choose their evidence based on their conclusions. Apologists often do this explicitly. Their books are often prefaced with something like, “We know that X is true, but here is some evidence to strengthen your faith. Keep in mind that if the evidence turns out to be wrong, it doesn’t affect whether X is true. X is true because the Torah says so.”
> They have every right to their beliefs, but we also have the right to question them, not agree with them, and find holes in your reasoning
Of course you do. But while you’ve been polite, often the counter-arguments to atheist arguments are, “You want to throw off the ol hatorah so you can do as you please / there are no questions, only answers / you’re nogeah b’davar and can’t trust your conclusions.” That’s intolerance. That, and branding non-believers as kofrim and rishoim, as people that the community needs to expose and ostracize and keep away from their children.
In my experience, most religious people never give their religion any real thought, while most atheists used to be religious and arrived at atheism after a lot of study and thinking.
> And no - my experience with the majority of atheists I've met is that they are just as "fundamentalist" in their beliefs as the worst religious fundamentalist
Interesting. We must know different people :)
> I can point to thousands of things that don't seem random at all, or at least would seem very strange if they really were random.
Such as?
> I think it takes a great deal of faith to believe that every single thing around you is random
Random with the parameters of natural law. And of course, statistics.
> one can choose to look at the return of the Jewish people to a sovereign state after almost 2,000 years as something that just kind of happened
It didn’t “just kind of happen.” It happened because the Zionists, during the rise of the nation-state, wanted a nation-state for the Jewish people and acted on a two-thousand-year-old prophecy that the Jewish people would return to the land of Israel. It wasn’t some random occurrence. It was a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The Jewish people davened for two thousand years that they be returned to Eretz Yisroel, and nothing happened. Secular Zionists took practical measures to establish a Jewish state, and they had one in under a century. What does that tell you?
Unlike Shakespeare, the Torah is a great moral guide that--in its present form--purports to be God's guide for man. Common belief in this is what has kept the Jews together and alive as a people. We had a great book, a great moral guide, and we believed it revealed God's plan for us and for the world.
ReplyDeleteWhy is that not a sufficient explanation of our survival as a people? What other nation had such a book that had such significance in its life?
>No, the Jews survived on the Torah because there is something intrinsically in it that enabled them to survive, something that doesn't exist in any other work that is man-made<
ReplyDeleteI agree. There is something intrinsic in the Torah that is so great that if you believe it is divine, you can survive as a nation.
But it's still man-made. By a group of moral and literary giants. And it was believed to be divine. And that's the main reason we survived.
I am not really an expert in the "Jewish survival proof." I am more into Kuzari. (At least for me, the Jewish survival proof alone would make me, let's say, 80% sure that the Torah is divine.)
ReplyDelete1. Jewish survival was already noticed and remarked upon thousands of years ago. That should tell you how special it is. Augustine of Hippo, in his Cities of God, which was written about 1800 years ago, claims that he is stunned that the Jews were able to survive "this long." The Chovos Halevovos, which was written about 1200 years ago, also talks about the miracle of Jewish survival. Pascal held that Jewish survival is the GREATEST proof that God exists.
2. Only one form of Judaism seems to be able to survive. Other forms are almost all extinct.
3. The Torah PREDICTED Jewish survival.
4. The Torah also predicted that the Sabbath and the Priestly line will never go extinct.
That's why Jewish survival, at least for me, would make me at least 80% sure that the Torah is divine. I am more of a Kuzari guy, as I said before.
Abele:
ReplyDelete1. Arguments from authority. Pascal's also the guy who came up with the infamous wager...perhaps the worst kiruv proof I've ever heard. Anyways, when it comes to famous quotes about Jews, I prefer "How odd of God/To choose the Jews."
2. Karaites and Samaritans are still around.
3&4. I see people really want me to write a post about the proof from prophecies...looks like I'll end up doing that...
1) It isn't an argument from authority. I am merely pointing out that it is an old argument, which gets stronger every year.
ReplyDelete2) The Samaritans are a good test-case. According to historians, there were millions of them during the second temple era. Today, there are a few hundred. Imporatntly, all of their cohanim have gone exitnct. Same with the Karaites. There are only a few left. Give them a couple of hundred more years and they will be were the Baitusim, Tzedukim, Ebionites, Essenes, Frankinsts, and Sabbatai tzvi followers have gone.
3) Please, I would love to discuss pascal's wager. Expect to be pulverized.
Sorry. I left out the most important point: The Samaritans weren't subject to same persecution that the Jews were. Rather, they all happily converted to Islam. Only the Jews stood up, with a large degree of success.
ReplyDeleteYep, as I noted earlier, the survival in the face of hester panim is quite remarkable. What's it point to? 80% sureness of the veracity of the Bible as God's text? I don't see that.
ReplyDeletePlease, I would love to discuss pascal's wager. Expect to be pulverized.
Comrade, you're a guest here; please allow your tone to be tempered by the consideration of good manners.
> Please, I would love to discuss pascal's wager. Expect to be pulverized.
ReplyDeleteOoh, can we? I’d love to see a good defense of Pascal’s wager. Like Baruch, I think Pascal’s wager is absolutely awful as a proof for Judaism. To start with, Pascal was a Catholic theologian arguing in favor of Catholicism. He clearly didn’t think it was an argument for Judaism. And tell me, what will you do if after 120 you get up to shomayim and Jesus tells you, “It’s great that you did all those mitzvos, but unfortunately you didn’t believe in me. I’m afraid you’re going to have to go to Hell.”
Alright, I'm fine with breaking open a discussion on Pascal's Wager here.
ReplyDelete(People should feel free to continue to comment on all the other issues raised in my post and the above comments)
Oh please, the great body of academic philosophy has dealt so decisively with Pascal's Wager (yes, it's been pulverized), that it strikes me as a bit arrogant for anyone lacking the proper training to think they have anything of value to add to the discussion.
ReplyDeleteSorry for the "pulverized" comment; it was childish of me.
ReplyDeleteBefore discussing Pascal's wager, I must point out that I am 100% sure that Judaism is the true religion (or, to be honest, 99.99% sure). So when I discuss the wager, I am not admitting at all the the proofs for Judaism aren't absolute.
When I read through The God Delusion, I was hoping that he would discuss pascal's wager. And he did. If you read his section on the wager, he sounds like a complete imbecile.
Ok. Let's discuss the wager. I don't have to remind you guys what pascal's wager is. Therefore, please inform me what the flaws of pascal's wager are? Once we spell out the flaws, we can show how flawed those flaws are.
Why don't we start with what I wrote above.
ReplyDeleteRelated to the wager, I just heara a hilarious story from a friend of mine. It's completely true.
ReplyDeleteOne of his distributors, an Israeli partnership, is run by a Haredi and an evangelical chiloni. The chiloni said, "How can you idiots believe in Olam Haba." So the Haredi said, "Fine, sell me your share, or whatever is left of it, for $100." The chiloni balked, so the Haredi raised it and they agreed that he would sell it for $50,000. They signed "official", legal documents and, yes, he sold his olam haba for $50,000.
Two nights later, the Haredi got a call from the chiloni's wife; she was hysterically crying that her husband is beside himself and he can't sleep, since he is so upset that he sold his olam haba -- the same olam haba that he mocked and made fun of a week earlier.
The Haredi had no choice but to sell it back.
Ok, G*3, we will start with what you wrote. You claimed that the wager works equally well for Christianity as it does for Judaism. Which option should we choose? Any. I would pick the one with the most proof, but if you really can't decide, then flip a coin.
ReplyDeleteThe atheist choice of "None-of-the-above" is silly.
> You claimed that the wager works equally well for Christianity as it does for Judaism.
ReplyDeleteBlaise Pascal was a Catholic! Do you not get that? It’s not my claim that his wager works for Catholicism, it’s his!
> Which option should we choose? Any. I would pick the one with the most proof, but if you really can't decide, then flip a coin.
All right then. What will you do when you get to shomayim and Jesus asks you why you didn’t believe in him? Most religions are mutually exclusive.
> The atheist choice of "None-of-the-above" is silly.
Why?
Abele,
ReplyDeleteFunny, every time I hear of a specific person trying to sell their soul, the frum person doesn't accept. I've attempted to sell my neshama through sellmeyourjewishsoul.com , but the guy wouldn't respond to my messages. Daas Hedyot got through, but apparently the owner said he'd only pay a small amount and only after Hedyot was done "watching all his videos, being tested on them, and having a rabbinically signed document authorizing my Jewishness." Anyways, I would like to give your friend, the distributor or you another opportunity -- the person who accepts the deal get my yiddishe neshama conditional upon frumkeit being the emes while I get the cash -- and I guarantee you I won't be crying after you or your friend or the distributor pay. We can do it via Paypal.
Pascal's Wager is specifically tailored for the non-believer. Non-believers are told to fake it till we make it because "if you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing."
But Judaism's expensive. The fees for kosher food alone, plus all the money a person has to pay for holiday observances. The time he has to dedicate to learning the intricate halachas of being frum. The limiting of marital and career opportunities to smaller pools. The unrealistic and dire prohibitions on certain sexual actions (see http://www.yonanewman.org/kizzur/kizzur151.html) and the judgment of engagement in them [When it comes to homosexuality btw, Reb Moshe maintains that people have gay sex "only because it is something prohibited and the yetzer harah seduces them to rebel against the will of G‑d" (Daniel Eidensohn's translation: http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2009/03/homosexuality-view-of-rav-moshe.html).]. I think I am losing some things and exchange for what? The opportunity to get rewards from a God who my logic won't allow me to believe in.
I had never heard of this ploy until recently, when a Lakewood cousin--hearing that I was an atheist--offered me $5 for my share in olam haba. I didn't want to rip him off, so I "sold" it to him for under a dollar, for which he also insisted I throw in all the s'chaar I've earned for my mitzvot, and but all his aveiros, which i did.
ReplyDeleteAfter thinking about the ethics of such a transaction from his POV, I realized that this was a way that Lakewood has trained its frum robots to "prove" to atheists that--deep down--they really aren't atheists.
But the deal went through, and I felt as if I had cheated the fellow.
and BUY all his aveiros, which i did.
ReplyDelete>The desire for homosexual relations is against natural lust and even the wicked do not have a desire for it itself. Rather their entire desire for it is only because it is something prohibited and the yetzer harah seduces them to rebel against the will of G‑d.<
ReplyDeleteBy this logic, homosexuality exists only because Hashem prohibited it. A form of "entrapment." If Hashem REALLY didn't want man to violate this prohibition, He wouldn't have announced that it was a prohibition, and no one would practice homosexual sex.
It's hard to conceive that a man as astute as R. Moshe--advised as he was by R. Moshe Tendler--would have said something this foolish. But I keep being amazed by the stupidity of gedolim.
Following Rav Moshe’s apparent logic, it’s a good thing that the Torah does not prohibit the eating of dog excrement. If it had, millions of people rebelling against G-d would be eating dog excrement, despite the fact that it’s against natural lust and that even the wicked do not have a desire for it itself, and they would desire it only because it is something prohibited and the yetzer harah seduces them to rebel against the will of G-d.
ReplyDeleteSic transit gloria Rav Moshe.
A couple of points.
ReplyDelete1) I don't care if Pascal used it for catholicism. The point is that it pays to be frum.
2) It may be hard to be frum (although odds are you will live longer if you are frum). But isn't it worth giving up those few silly pleasures for a 1% chance of eternal pleasure?
abele,
ReplyDelete1) No, the point is that the author of Pascal's wager would tell you that you're betting on the wrong horse.
2) I'm sorry to break it to you , but some people prefer quality over quantity.
3) Since the quality of the high-end Christian apologetics leaves the very best that the kiruv clowns have to offer in the dust (not to mention that we're outnumbered by believing Christians 1000 to 1, Pascal's wager would seem to dictate that the safest course would be to throw in with Christ.
I know you said, "I don't have to remind you guys what pascal's wager is," but humor me. What is it exactly that you think Pascals' Wager is?
ReplyDelete1) I agree that he would tell me that I am betting on the wrong horse (unless one would argue, as some contemporary christian theologians do, that Judaism is a legitimate religion). However, I would rather bet on one horse rather than no horses.
ReplyDelete2) I don't understand your quantity/quality argument. I have infinity, or a small shot at infinity, and all you have is Mcdonals, sleeping late on shabbos, and (according to Bpelta) gay sex. Doesn't seem like you got much.
3) Ok. Fine. You think Christianity is a safer bet than Judaism. So, indeed, become a christian. Go to church. Wear a cross, etc. Why do you choose none-of-the-above? Furthermore, I don't understand your point about numbers. They have large numers because no one thinks about their religion. Regarding their apologetics, they all ignore the main point: The Sanhedrin said that Jesus is a fraud. That ends the debate, since we follow the Sanhedrin even if they are wrong.
Mendy:
ReplyDeleteBetting a good deal of cash on frumkeit is a hard offer to pass up...and if somebody has the courage of his convictions to bet that kind of cash on Judaism's veracity in an open society like ours, who am I to stop him? I do understand your perspective, but however many influences a frum Jew's had, he does have a chiyuv to look into things for himself. I do understand your perspective, but if a person claims that it was logic which led him to Judaism, then all I'm doing is betting on whose reasoning is better.
Unfortunately, ebay doesn't allow soul sales anymore, but my schar is on offer. For all these stories of people selling their schar and then begging for it back, I've sure had trouble finding a buyer...
I have infinity, or a small shot at infinity, and all you have is Mcdonals, sleeping late on shabbos, and (according to Bpelta) gay sex.
ReplyDeleteYou know a lot more is forbidden than you're letting on...I made references to multiple things, not just Mcdonalds, sleeping late, and (judgment of) gay sex. Again:
Judaism's expensive. The fees for kosher food alone, plus all the money a person has to pay for holiday observances. The time he has to dedicate to learning the intricate halachas of being frum. The limiting of marital and career opportunities to smaller pools. The unrealistic and dire prohibitions on certain sexual actions (see http://www.yonanewman.org/kizzur/kizzur151.html) and the judgment of engagement in them [When it comes to homosexuality btw, Reb Moshe maintains that people have gay sex "only because it is something prohibited and the yetzer harah seduces them to rebel against the will of G‑d" (Daniel Eidensohn's translation: http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2009/03/homosexuality-view-of-rav-moshe.html).].
> However, I would rather bet on one horse rather than no horses.
ReplyDeleteWait, why is atheism not a horse? Maybe God doesn’t like to be bothered, and rewards only those who never bug Him? Maybe there is a God, but He isn’t the god of any of the religions that people practice, and He’s as jealous as the biblical God. I’m betting that either of those is at least as likely as the God of the bible being real.
> They have large numers because no one thinks about their religion.
As opposed to Orthodox Jews, right?
> The Sanhedrin said that Jesus is a fraud. That ends the debate, since we follow the Sanhedrin even if they are wrong.
I suppose that never occurred to any of the Christian scholars. Either that, or they disagree with you about the authority of the Sanhedrin.
G*3, you brought up an interesting point. You claim that, maybe, God will only give the atheists an afterlife? Maybe it's us frum guys who will be toasted.
ReplyDeleteRichard Dawkins made the same argument against Pascal's Wager that you are making.
I"ll give you a project: find the flaw in the above-mentioned reasoning.
For those who might not have read Dawkins' book, here's an audio of the section on the Wager:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWu450rVJO4
[I don't have the book on me right now, but I think this audio gets one thing wrong. In the book, I'm pretty sure it says, "Bertrand Russell's (I almost said immortal) reply" whereas here the audio says, "Bertrand Russell's immortal reply."]
abele derer,
ReplyDeleteI don't get it. You ask others to voice their objections to Pascals wager saying that you can counter every argument against it. Then the most obvious claim is that maybe there is a G-d that only favors rational people who don't resort irrational theological beliefs, like atheists. This G-d could definitely want to punish all the frum Jews and reward all of the atheists.
After which you ask those who presented this counterargument to pascals wager to find a flaw in the counterargument for you? Are you being serious? I thought you could pulverize anyone with Pascal's wager. Whatever happened to that claim?
I posed the challenge in order to get you skeptics to use your mind, for a change. This way, you will be able to test yourself, to see if you have the courage to look through the false arguments presented by your geeky heroes.
ReplyDeleteThis is your response to Pascal: "Maybe there is a God that only favors rathional people."
Rebecca Goldstein had the same response: "Maybe I should put marshmellows in my closet for the dragon that would burn me for not feeding it?"
The flaw in this response is this: There is ZERO evidence that your "skeptics-loving-God" or "marshmellow-loving-God" exists. ZERO.
Pascal's wager, indeed, does not work for a religion that has ZERO evidence.
Does Judaism, Islam, or Christianity have ZERO evidence? Clearly not. All the religions claim reports of prophecy and miracles. You may claim that the evidence for them is weak, BUT YOU CANNOT CLAIM THAT IT IS ZERO.
If I have weak evidence for something VERY rewarding, I might as well trust the evidence and follow the evidence.
Just to make sure I'm understanding correctly, you believe -- say -- the Mormon Church's claim to prophecies and miracles (see eg http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_prophecies.shtml ) counts as evidence? I understand you don't accept the evidence, but you think it counts as evidence?
ReplyDeleteI happen to hold that, yes, the evidence for Mormonism does count as evidence. No question about it. A report of a miracles is definitely evidence. Still, Pascal's Wager (at least the way I would understand it) tells us to follow whatever has the most evidence.
ReplyDeleteSo, yes, if Judaism was ever proved to be false, I would enthusiastically become a Mormon, or a Christian, etc.
So basically you are saying that the only G-d that has any evidence to support its existence is one that is so extremely petty that the only thing it cares about is whether or not people will mindlessly believe in him just so they can get pleasure and avoid punishment after they die?
ReplyDeleteYou are telling me that that is the only G-d that can exist? One that prefers mindless zombies and yes men? Ones that will blindly follow orders just so they will get rewarded, regardless of any rational inquiry?
If that is the case such a G-d does exist, then the only think he will get from me is my middle finger and a "fuck you!"
It's pathetic you find that such a wager is the only reason you would become a mormon/christian. You would be the kind of person that would kiss Hitlers ass if you knew G-d would give you rewards for it or if it would spare you some celestial torment. Sad, just sad.
Again even if I were convinced the Christian G-d did exist, there is no way I would become a Christian. Because any G-d that would send little innocent non christian infants and children to eternal torment in hell and nazis who on their deathbed accepted Jesus to eternal bliss doesn't deserve my respect or allegance.
I would rather suffer an eternity with the innocent and those that I loved than spend an eternerty of fun with the G-d that would be so cruel and heartless.
Oh by the way abele derer, G-d just came to me in a dream and told me that he will send all religious people to hell for being such suck ups and all atheists to heaven for being intellectually honest.
ReplyDeleteSo I guess there is evidence for such a G-d.
You may claim that the evidence for them is weak, BUT YOU CANNOT CLAIM THAT IT IS ZERO.
Skeptitcher, don't think I didn't think about your scenario, about someone claiming a prophecy from God that said "only atheists will receive reward, and all deists will be heavily burned."
ReplyDeleteHow would we respond to his point? Again, I offer you, Mr. Skeptitcher, to answer your critique of the wager. Do you have the guts to find the flaw in your argument?
Regarding your other point, that you find my God to be extremely petty, ok fine. Bravo. You have real guts to stand up to this big bully. You are really brave and macho -- or are you simply deluding yourself into thinking how macho you are? Were you ever in the military? Were you ever a cop? If not, then your are probably deluding yourself. You are simply too lazy to take God seriously.
Actually, God came to me in a dream last night too. He told me that he's only going to give rewards to those of us who carry on like atheists. But he told me to keep his existence hush-hush, pretend like he doesn't exist, and that I can only shmooze about him at the end of lengthy comment threads with people who probably won't believe me anyways. What can I say, God works in mysterious ways. ;)
ReplyDeleteDo you have the guts...You are simply too lazy to take God seriously.
And...on that note, I'm closing the thread.
Well, one more thing:
Seriously, my offer is still open for Abele's friend's supplier (or Abele. or Abele's friend. Or anybody) to give me cash for my schar al menas frumkeit is der emes. I wonder why no frum people seem to want to make this deal when there's a specific person with a real name making the offer.