Thursday, February 25, 2010

Does Being Wrong Make Something Wrong?

That is, does being morally wrong make something factually wrong? Specifically, does a religious demand for an immoral action or religious sanction of an immoral attitude show that the religion is false?

A little over a month ago, Hedyot posted one of his “Better Know A Kofer” interviews, this one with a woman who calls herself Derech Acheret. The interview implied that she had rejected Orthodox Judaism because she found its inherent misogyny immoral. My initial reaction was that this is not a valid reason to reject Judaism’s truth-claims.

About a week later I read a post by Brooklyn Wolf in which he discussed whether it is halachicly permissible to violate Shabbos to save a non-Jew’s life (and whether he would be able to adhere to halacha in that situation). Wolf asked if one witnessed a car crash on Shabbos, would one permitted to save the non-Jewish driver and his small child? According to a strict interpretation of halacha, it would seem not. (The consensus among the commenters was that there are sufficient loopholes to allow for saving the driver and child, and that practically speaking one should do so, but that’s somewhat beside the point.) Here, my instinctive reaction was, “This halacha is immoral! Another strike against Orthodoxy!”

A moment later I realized that my reaction ran counter to the position I had taken in the discussion on Hedyot’s blog. And so I began to think more about whether the immoral aspects of a religion is reason enough to reject its truth claims.

To begin with, there is the question of what makes something moral. Religion takes the stance that we can know what is moral by following what God tells us to do. The Euthyphro dilemma, the question of whether God’s commands are moral because they are what God commands or if God commands that which is moral by some other, objective standard is not relevant to this discussion. I am not concerned with how the morality of religious directives is derived. It is enough that they are assumed to be moral. Given that the religion is assumed to be moral, our personal sense of morality, influenced as it is by the culture into which we happen to be born, is irrelevant. If it is true that the religious dictate is moral, then our sense that it is immoral is simply wrong.

It is not enough, then, for our personal sense of morality to be at odds with religious teachings. After all, if it is true that an omniscient God handed down these commands from on high, who are we to disagree? Rather, it is necessary to deal with the underlying assumption that religious dictates are inherently moral. To do this, we need to address the basis for that assumed morality, the religion’s truth-claims about God.

Before I get to that, I want to address why we have the instinctive reaction that tells us that immoral (by our personal standards) religious dictates are proof that the religion is wrong. I think it comes from an assumption that religion teaches us what is what is good, and when its teachings outrage our moral sensibilities, we see that as evidence that the religion is wrong. The implicit argument can be laid out like this:

Premise A: Religion always teaches and commands us to do what is good.
Premise B: Therefore, a religion that demands something immoral cannot be true.
Premise C: The religion dictates something that is bad.
Conclusion: The religion is not true.

As I stated above, though, it is entirely plausible to argue that the religious teaching in fact embodies a timeless moral truth that we, unfortunately influenced by the culture we live in, wrongly perceive as immoral.

It is therefore necessary to address the foundations of the assumption that religious dictates are moral: The claim that they were handed down by God, Who only commands us to do that which is moral. This can be broken down into three premises:

1) God exists.
2) God handed down these religious commands.
3) God only commands that which is moral.

If any of these premises are false we have a valid reason for rejecting the religious commands. I think that 3 is largely irrelevant in a practical sense. Even if God were sadistic and commanded us to act immorally, we would be well advised to do as He says. We simply do not have the ability to defy an omnipotent Being and have it end well for us. You could argue that trusting such a Being to be good to us if we follow His commands is foolish, but I think trusting Him to make us miserable if we don’t is a safe bet. Practically, we would have no choice but to do as we’re told and hope for the best.

For the theist who objects to a given religious dictate, attacking premise 2 is the best way to go. If one can make a good argument that God never commanded the particular practice you object to, or that his commands were misunderstood, or that society has warped the true intention of the command and piled layers of unnecessary, objectionable practices on top of it, then the particular practice can be altered or abandoned without rejecting the overall religion.

For the atheist, showing that premise 2 is false in all cases would disprove a religion. Showing that Matan Torah probably wasn’t a historical event, for instance, and that the Torah was compiled later from extant mythology would be a valid reason for rejecting Judaism’s dictates. The lack of evidence for premise 1 would similarly be a valid reason for rejecting religious commands.

It seems that some people who reject religious claims do so because they find certain religious beliefs or practices immoral. Before recently noticing and giving thought to this tendency, I also often took immoral religious commands as evidence that the religion is wrong. But, to answer the question in the post’s title, that I think something is morally wrong doesn’t make it factually wrong. It could be that I’m mistaken about morality. It could be that I’m correct, but that God demands the immoral action, in which case it is in my best interest to comply.

I think that rejection of religion should rest upon rejection of its truth-claims, not on objections to its morality. At best, showing that religion is immoral only disproves one of its claims, the claim that religious dictates are good and guide one in leading a moral life. Far more important are the questions of God’s existence and His will. To reject a religion simply because you object to the demands it makes of its adherents or the culture it supports is an appeal to consequences: I don’t like it, therefore it’s not true.

62 comments:

  1. Excellent post.

    I agree that Premises 1 and 2 should be challenged more than three, as they're much more substantial. However, as we all know, religion is given a lot of respect and deference in the public sphere, and people often feel safer bickering about relative trivialities as opposed to fundamental beliefs when it comes to religion, which accounts for why people tend to shy away from Premises 1 and 2 and debate Premise 3 til the cows come home. There's less stigma there. Even Reform doesn't argue with Orthodox about 1 and 2. This is an important point. All religions (or most) presuppose a belief in God and a belief in divinely-inspired (or written!) books. How to interpret them is where they all disagree. Fascinating.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Kudos G*3. Very well written.

    Nonsense OFD! You've gotten your facts wrong. Reform certainly do deny # 2.

    Ironic, isn't it, that they are willing to believe in #1?

    At least scoffers like G*3 and I are consistent and negate #1 and #2.

    If # 1 was accurate then it is more or less expected that this creator or divine being leave something like # 2 behind.

    That is why it is illogical to believe it #1 and not # 2.

    However, to reiterate, for those of us who are intellectually honest, there is no issue for as soon as we eliminated #1, #2 became a no-brainer.

    BTW, G*3, what ever happened with your critique of Search Judaism? Not having read the book and being too cheap :) to purchase it, I've been relying upon your quotations from the book to gain "insight."

    ReplyDelete
  3. OTD, I think it’s the details of #2 that’s actually debated. All religious people assume that God exists and that God is good/moral. While most also agree that He left a holy text, they disagree on exactly what He wants us to do. As I said in the post, I think this is the only way to go if you want to keep the overall theology while disputing specific points.

    Ben Avuyah, thank you. I’m not so sure that 1 leads directly to 2. Deists believe in the existence of God without believing that He left instructions for us. Do you mean that if the God of Judaism/Christianity/Islam exists, then it is expected that He gave us a holy book? I think that’s true, but that’s at least partly because the concept of God in the Abrahamic faiths is built around a Being Who is in fact believed to have given such a book(s).

    I’m planning on getting back to Search Judaism soon. I’m up to a part that discusses the Cambrian explosion, something that I have only a passing familiarity with, and I had to do some research. Then the baby was born, and I was busy for a while. I’ll probably get to it next week.

    ReplyDelete
  4. BA: Yes, they disagree with the details of 2, but they don't argue with it in principle. They believe they have God's word as well, and they have their texts and divine inspiration. Just like most religions. Again, my point is that most religions believe God handed down commands, though there's a lot of disagreement as to what those commands were and how relevant they are to modern life.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "All religions (or most) presuppose a belief in God and a belief in divinely-inspired (or written!) books."

    Not really. It is true of the largest religions in the world, Christianity and Islam, as well as some smaller ones like Judaism.

    But it certainly is not true for the large amount of religions that are practiced by illiterate tribes for example. Nor is it really true for a large religion like Hinduism as I understand it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm not convinced I agree with you. The immorality of a particular religious tenet is often taken as evidence that the tenet was a product of the time the religion emerged. If that is the case, then the religion has no transcendental origin. It is not that Torah min Hashamayim is assumed, and then the perceived immorality is less relevant; rather that in assessing the claim that the Torah is of divine origin, do we see things that would make us feel that this book is unlikely to contain things that would not reasonably be a part of God's ultimate revelation to mankind? I don't think anyone would assume that a book which merely contained exhortations to kill everyone with ginger hair would possibly be regarded as divine.
    Also, you claim that if the Torah can be shown to be of human origin, then there is no obligation to follow its dictates. There are many, such as the Conservative Movement, Louis Jacobs and James Kugel who disagree with you on that one, although I must admit I don't fully understand their position.

    ReplyDelete
  7. J, I see your point, but I think that we’re talking about two different things. I’m talking about someone who points to the immorality of a command as proof the religion is false: the logic seems to be that a religion that is true would not demand immoral actions. You’re talking about someone who looks at religious morality, sees that it is identical to the prevalent morality of the time and place where the religion arose, and uses that as evidence that the religion is man-made. First, that is an argument over whether the commands were given by God. Second, the theist could say that the morals of that time and place match the religious morality precisely because the religious laws had just been handed down from on high and the people so close to the revelation followed the laws exactly.

    Be that as it may, it could be that I’m mistaken and the argument people make is yours, rather than that if it’s immoral it can’t be true.

    > Also, you claim that if the Torah can be shown to be of human origin, then there is no obligation to follow its dictates. There are many, such as the Conservative Movement, Louis Jacobs and James Kugel who disagree with you on that one

    Interesting. I didn’t know that. I thought Conservative held that Torah was at least Divinely inspired. Divinely inspired would count as handed down from God, even if He didn’t personally put pen to paper.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm not sure that I agree either. Logically speaking, your assertion is correct. Just because I don't agree with something doesn't prove its falsehood.

    But the contradiction lies in that religions promote and sell themselves because of their supposed "morality" on HUMAN terms-- kindness, forgiveness, etc. They seek to gain followers because they offer something lofty. People don't willingly and consciously decided to adopt a religion out of fear of God, they do it because they become convinced of the truth and loftiness-- an ideal.

    I recognize that this is an argument that operates at an emotional level, but thats how religions sell themselves. And my answer to that, is that, if your omnipresent and omnipotent god runs the world they we he does now, he a a psychopath deity, not the one true god that is being sold, and is a god not worth worshiping.

    ReplyDelete
  9. DrJ, you make a good point. If someone practices a religion because of its supposed lofty morality, then a perceived lack of morality will lead them to reject it. Still, I think you would have the problem I mentioned in the post – how do you know that it’s your sense of morality that’s correct, and not the religion’s morals?

    I think one of my problems with religion is that I always saw it as true in a concrete, real-world way, rather than something to make me feel good emotionally. If it’s really real, rather than feeling real, its foundations have to be true.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think the point is that if we take the possibility that it is our moral sense which is 'broken' and not in tune with the true, Godly, morality, then (assuming the perceived immorality of a religious law), we are forcing ourselves to admit that what we regard as moral progress is meaningless (e.g. no slavery any more) and that God has allowed us to have an inbuilt sense of right and wrong which doesn't comport with his revealed will. If that is the case, then we loose any ability to make any moral judgement about anything, besides from the tautology that the good consists of God's revealed will.
    If we are evaluating the claim for a benevolent Deity with a revealed will, then it is much easier to accept that claim if His revealed will does not consist of a long list of commands that are detrimental to human happiness and well-being.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If morality is not objective which to me means that it is G-d given, then what is the basis for its significance? You feel one way, I feel another, you're entitled to your opinion, me to mine. But it will not have any meaning beyond your taste in ice cream vs. mine.
    To the larger discussion; why is it that all of you assume that the default position in life is no G-d, and no obligations. The proof then falls on the religion to justify itself and prove itself, which of course is nary impossible in the mathematical sense. It would seem to me that the overwhelming evidence (Jewish history, even the modern era - the Holocaust, the Torah, Shas and Rishonim, the human body, etc. etc.)indicates the truth of Orthodox Judaism, and you're grasping at straws that well yes, this could be explained (away) this way, and that can be explained (away) that way.

    ReplyDelete
  12. dylanesque, yes, morality is not objective and has little significance beyond the practical value of all of us agreeing not to kill each other, steal from each other, etc. allowing us to live together as a society and thereby gain the benefits living in a society has.

    As to the bigger question: I’m assuming from your comment that you’re frum. If you’d like, I can address the specific examples you cite, but first try a thought experiment. There have been many intelligent Christians over the last two millennia, and many Christians today can cite proofs that Jesus is the son of God. Yet you reject Jesus’ divinity. Why?

    For many of the same reasons you reject the proofs for Jesus, we reject the proofs for God.

    Incidentally, from our point of view, we’re not “grasping at straws” to “explain away” evidence for God. It is rather the theist who is grasping at straws when trying to use naturalistic phenomena that are easily explainable without resort to God as proofs of His existence.

    ReplyDelete
  13. i appreciate your honesty, morality has no greater meaning, it's practical. but if you really believe what you say that morality is subjective and practical, you'd be a fool not to get away with whatever you could (of course taking risk-benefit like getting caught, into account.)

    on to bigger issues. natural phenomena "easily explainable?" i don't think so (and I know a thing or two about it.) anyway, hashem has created nature with a system. whatever man can't explain - light has both wave and particle properties, the human brain is completely unintelligible at this point to modern science, - we just say wait, we'll figure it out. but even if (when) we could explain everything, the rationalistic approach to nature doesn't disprove g-d, because all the explanations of science begs the question, who made it that way?

    i don't think i'm getting to pascal when i say that although
    g-d can't be mathematically proven (to us frummies, we say He left room for bechira,)all the overwhelming evidence points to His exiistence. yeah, you can explain away the kuzari arguement, the intricateness of nature, jewish history, the otherworldy genius of torah sheba'al peh, etc. etc. but like i said, that's bending over backwards to deny the obvious. why do it?

    i reject the "proofs" of j's divinity for 2 reasons (other than that i've never heard them!)
    1- our forefathers saw him and didn't accept him, and they demonstrated their complete willingness to sacrifice for the truth previously.
    2 - as far as i know (and i admittedly know very little about this,)christianity accepts the truth of the torah. well, any beginner knows that their aint no torah without torah sheba'al peh (and there is no other torah sheba'aal peh besides ours,) and the t's'b'p says that anybody who teaches that anything in the torah is false, is wrong (though probably not ranking as a navi sheker acc. to sanh. 89.) ergo, j isn't divine.

    why do christians accept him? ask them. better yet, ask the ones who converted over to us!
    you can ask the jews who converted out, why did they do it? if any of them throughout history converted because of theological reasons, i'd love to read the book. meanwhile, getting burned at the stake is not something everybody can stand up to.

    to sum up; you can reject the proofs of g-d, because there are no proofs in the mathematical sense, but there sure is overwhelming evidence from an array of fields relating to various human faculties (primarily logic, but also emotion, and intuition,) that there is indeed a g-d. you're welcome to join us!

    ReplyDelete
  14. because all the explanations of science begs the question, who made it that way?
    No it doesn't. If god made it, then who made god?

    Why do you assume that there *has* to be a creator? Why not assume that the universe always was, or even better realize that *who cares* who made the universe. As long as the universe works according to set, discoverable rules, that is all that matters to the rationally minded. All else is left to the philosophers (which IMHO aren't that much better than the theologians in terms of rationality).

    g-d can't be mathematically proven
    Nothing useful in life (including math itself; see Godel's incomplete theorem) can be mathematically proven. However we could expect a certain degree of proof.

    (to us frummies, we say He left room for bechira,)
    This has already been answered elsewhere (free will either (a) can't exist or (b) doesn't answer the problem of non-proof)
    For example:
    Humans beings are not rational. If a rational proof existed some people would still not believe in the One True God (tm). Free will could exist with a rational proof. Besides there is no basis (forget about proof) upon which to start building any sort of rational proof. Surely god could have at least let us start *somewhere*

    all the overwhelming evidence points to His exiistence.
    No - not really

    yeah, you can explain away the kuzari arguement,
    "explain away" is the wrong term: "respond to your fallacious arguments" is more correct

    the otherworldy genius of torah sheba'al peh,
    You mean how the rabbis got science completely wrong (think Niddah, evolution, abiogenesis of lice, I'm sure there are others)?

    etc. etc. but like i said, that's bending over backwards to deny the obvious. why do it?
    I'll you the same question:
    Why do you bend over backwards to deny the obvious: that god is less likely than dinosaurs currently living inside the stomach of the invisible pink unicorn, on top of Russell's teapot, in north Dakota (ok so that was a bit of a rant but you get my point)?

    i reject the "proofs" of j's divinity for 2 reasons (other than that i've never heard them!)
    well, any beginner knows that their aint no torah without torah sheba'al peh
    Oh really? What about pre-pharisees? Why do you neglect Jewish History?

    (and there is no other torah sheba'aal peh besides ours,)
    OK, I'll grant you that there is no other creative reinterpretation that asserts to be given at Sinai

    and the t's'b'p says that anybody who teaches that anything in the torah is false, is wrong
    As whatever you say is false the torah says is false - right?

    (though probably not ranking as a navi sheker acc. to sanh. 89.)
    At least they won't be killed for saying different lies than the Jewish "prophets"


    to sum up; you can reject the proofs of g-d, because there are no proofs in the mathematical sense,

    No - we reject the proofs for god but there are no proofs in any sense


    that there is indeed a g-d. you're welcome to join us!

    No thanks - I'd rather live my moral and rational life.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dylanesque, before I respond to your comment I just want to say that I have no real interest in convincing you that I’m right or that you’re wrong. I engage in these debates because I find it interesting, and maybe we’ll both learn something. In that spirit:

    I’m not sure what you mean by “appreciate my honesty.” It is what it is. What were you expecting? As for being “a fool not to get away with whatever you could,” if we were strictly rational beings, you would be right. But we’re not. If we were strictly rational, we wouldn’t eat foods that are bad for us, but we do that too. Social contract is the rational reason for morality. The reason most people are moral has more to do with instinct and learned norms.


    > on to bigger issues. natural phenomena "easily explainable?" i don't think so (and I know a thing or two about it.)

    I didn’t mean that discovering the explanations was easy, but that many of the explanations we have do a good job of, well, explaining without recourse to the supernatural.

    > anyway, hashem has created nature with a system.

    Prove it. We start by assuming we know nothing, and work from there. Saying something doesn’t make it so. But that is a brilliant bit of apologetics, in that it is completely unfalsifiable and returns all naturalistically-explained phenomena firmly to God’s domain.

    > whatever man can't explain - light has both wave and particle properties, the human brain is completely unintelligible at this point to modern science, - we just say wait, we'll figure it out.

    You don’t explicitly say so, but you seem to be implying that the things we don’t understand are explained by God. Reducing the Divine to the God of the Gaps isn’t a good way to go.
    > but even if (when) we could explain everything, the rationalistic approach to nature doesn't disprove g-d, because all the explanations of science begs the question, who made it that way?

    No it doesn’t. (And that’s not what “beg the question” means, but let’s not quibble over semantics.) Your question in fact “begs the question” by assuming what it is trying to prove. You ask, “’who’ made it that way?” assuming that there is a “Who” that made everything the way it is. “Why is everything the way it is?” is a legitimate question, and the answer may be, “Because God made it that way,” but that remains to be proven. And of course, there is the problem of infinite regress – if God made the universe, where did God come from?

    > …although g-d can't be mathematically proven (to us frummies, we say He left room for bechira,)

    I addressed this argument in the post that follows this one

    > all the overwhelming evidence points to His exiistence.

    Obviously, I disagree with you on this. And asserting something doesn’t make it so.

    > yeah, you can explain away the kuzari arguement,

    The Kuzari proof is absolutely terrible. Briefly:
    1. People are really, really gullible. Even (especially) in large groups.
    2. There are two places in navi that tell of the discovery of the Torah or parts thereof that are clearly unknown to the discoverers.
    3. If we had a perfect mesorah, the gemara wouldn’t exist.
    4. There are other nations with traditions of mass revelation. The Aztecs, for example, had a tradition that their god led the entire nation to the site of Mexico City and told them to make their capital there.

    ReplyDelete
  16. > the intricateness of nature,

    The appearance of design does not by itself imply a designer. I’ve discussed the Watchmaker Argument elsewhere.

    > jewish history,

    You mean the survival of the Jewish people as a nation, right? Because I sure hope you don’t mean the suffering. The survival of the Jewish people can be explained quite nicely by sociological factors without resort to God. The suffering demands an accounting from this supposedly benevolent Deity.

    > the otherworldy genius of torah sheba'al peh,

    Surely you’re joking. I certainly won’t deny that the taanaim, amoraim, etc. were clever. Many of them were undoubtedly geniuses. That doesn’t make TSBP otherworldy. And then there’s all the stuff they got wrong, the hair-splitting scholasticism of tosfos, the shaky constructs of pilpul, the inane “cute” divrie torah you hear at every simcha, etc. etc.

    > etc. etc. but like i said, that's bending over backwards to deny the obvious. why do it?

    Once again, asserting something doesn’t make it so. None of these things are “obvious.” If they were, billions of people would be besieging batei dinim, applying for geirus. As I said before, from our point of view it is you who is “bending over backwards” to find justification for your beliefs. You are welcome to do so, but don’t expect anyone who doesn’t already agree with you to be convinced.


    > i reject the "proofs" of j's divinity for 2 reasons (other than that i've never heard them!)

    Well, if you’ve never heard them, you can hardly be said to have given Christianity a fair chance! Be that as it may, my point was not to convince you that Christianity has legitimacy, but to point out to you that you reject Christianity because you have no good reason to accept it. You approach Christian beliefs the same way I approach all religious beliefs, with the difference that I know a great deal about Judaism while you admittedly know very little about Christianity.

    > 1- our forefathers saw him and didn't accept him, and they demonstrated their complete willingness to sacrifice for the truth previously.

    Some of them, anyway. The first Christians were all Jews, you know, and many of them died as martyrs for their faith. Not that someone’s willingness to die for a cause has any bearing on its objective truth.

    > 2 - as far as i know (and i admittedly know very little about this,)christianity accepts the truth of the torah.

    Sort of. Christianity accepts Tanach, but not the rest of what we think of as “Torah,” and ehe New Testament supersedes the Old Testament.

    > well, any beginner knows that their aint no torah without torah sheba'al peh

    Yes, but the more educated person knows that just aint so.

    ReplyDelete
  17. > (and there is no other torah sheba'aal peh besides ours,)

    You wanna bet? Ask the Tzedukim, or the Kaarites, or the Samaritans (the last two of which still exist as small communities). Contrary to the gemara’s polemics, the Tzedukim and the Kaarites had their own, different, if sometimes more literal methods of exegesis.

    > and the t's'b'p says that anybody who teaches that anything in the torah is false, is wrong

    Welcome to the world of circular reasoning. “I know this book is true because the book says that anyone who disagrees with the book is wrong.”

    > why do christians accept him?

    Most of them accept him for the same reason most frum people are frum, and the reason most children of atheist parents are atheists. Because they were raised that way.

    > you can ask the jews who converted out, why did they do it? if any of them throughout history converted because of theological reasons, i'd love to read the book. meanwhile, getting burned at the stake is not something everybody can stand up to.

    There are frum Jews who convert to Christianity even today, when there is no threat of being burnt at the stake. I don’t know if any have written a book, but I imagine there probably was one or two who did. Check out your local Christian bookstore. Anyway, no one was ever burnt for not converting. Those killed at the auto-de-fe were lapsed converts, for all that the Marranos were coerced into conversion. I’m not saying people weren’t forced to convert, just that being burnt wasn’t the method of compulsion.

    > to sum up; you can reject the proofs of g-d, because there are no proofs in the mathematical sense, but there sure is overwhelming evidence from an array of fields relating to various human faculties (primarily logic, but also emotion, and intuition,) that there is indeed a g-d.

    Emotion doesn’t prove anything objectively, and intuition is only reliable in areas in which you’re an expert. No one is an expert on God. (There are many experts on religion, or on theories of God, but none on God.) As for logic, can you provide any? I’d be interested in seeing them. I’ve never seen one that holds water.

    > you're welcome to join us!

    Been there, done that.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Avi and G3:
    I entered this blog to learn a thing or two myself, not to convince you guys. I wanted to test out my belief system on non belivers such as yourselves to see what the response was. And I do indeed see, that my emunah does come down to a degree on a subjective feeling on my part. Bit of a disappointment there.

    However, let me present two indications of g-d's existence that although they don't rank as proofs, do require quite a stretch to explain away. Again, to my mind.

    1- Our mesorah is pretty impressive. Unrivaled in fact, but it's not a competititon. It goes back a long way, and includes some seriously hehavy hitters (Rambam, GRA.) You think they fell for the same malarky that the masses did? And these people dedicated their lives to this thing called Torah. For what? Intellectual stimulation? Political power? C'mon. Only explanation is that the whole business is true.

    2- Jewish history. Can't believe I'm going down this road but here goes......the Holocaust proves g-d. And all the other Jewish suffering throughout the ages. Why do they hate us so much? Hitler impeded his own war effort to kill us! And now throw in the fact that we're still here. Kinda strange no? I don't agree that it can be explained quite nicley by sociological factors, no one else has managed!

    Finally, a couple of corrections to your points;
    Just because Chazal got some science wrong is no big deal. They got a heck of a lot more right on stuff that they were way ahead of their time in (kiddush hachodesh anyone?) I don't claim to be a scholar of other fields of knowledge but I'm not ignorant either, and you just don't find other bodies of knowledge on the same level as Chazal's TSBP. Don't bring up stupid vorts people say at simchos, that's irrelevant.
    Gotta go, back later.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I entered this blog to learn a thing or two myself
    Good - the willingness to learn is arguably the most important thing in life.

    And I do indeed see, that my emunah does come down to a degree on a subjective feeling on my part.
    Here is the real test of your intellectual integrity: what do you tell your kids. Do you tell them the "proofs" and hope that never question in hopes that they stay Frum? Or do you be honest: "There is no way to no this stuff, but I really feel like its true so I'm follow these rituals. However when it comes to you do what you feel".

    Bit of a disappointment there.
    Come over to the our ("dark") side and feel intellectually honest without any disappointment necessary.

    You think they fell for the same malarky that the masses did?
    Not completely - which is why they modified it to fit their own conceptions of god.
    The Rambam for example changed the Jewish view of god from a physical being to a unknowable non-physical entity. This was a massive change to Jewish theology.

    And these people dedicated their ...Only explanation is that the whole business is true.
    Wrong. Only explanation is that they thought that their interpretation of the whole thing was true.

    the Holocaust proves g-d

    Not going down that road.
    And all the other Jewish suffering throughout the ages.
    Yes - the omni-benevolent omni-powerful god let his "children" suffer. I'm sure of it. [end of sarcasm]
    Why do they hate us so much?
    http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/jewish/lazare-anti.html - I didn't read it all but it seems like an ok resource
    And now throw in the fact that we're still here.
    Ah, the incomplete devastation argument.
    There was a giant earthquake and 100 people died. One child lived with only two broken arms. Miracle!

    Just because Chazal got some science wrong is no big deal. They got a heck of a lot more right on stuff that they were way ahead of their time in (kiddush hachodesh anyone?)
    Chazal got most of science wrong. They even thought the earth was flat, that the sun moved behind the earth at night, and a whole bunch of other quackery that makes sense if you remember when they wrote it.
    Actually, its worse, the rest of the world already knew about the round earth - chazal still thought it was flat.
    and you just don't find other bodies of knowledge on the same level as Chazal's TSBP.
    Does philosophy of religion count as a body of knowledge?

    Science today has far better predictive value that anything the Torah has ever produced. Science today is a far better explanation of how the world works. (Don't get me started on all the failed prophesies)

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dylanesque, Avi answered most of your points, so just a couple of things he didn’t mention:

    > Our mesorah is pretty impressive. Unrivaled in fact, but it's not a competititon.

    I’m not clear on what you mean here. Do you mean the body of knowledge, or the chain of oral tradition?

    > It goes back a long way, and includes some seriously hehavy hitters (Rambam, GRA.) You think they fell for the same malarky that the masses did? And these people dedicated their lives to this thing called Torah. For what? Intellectual stimulation? Political power? C'mon. Only explanation is that the whole business is true.

    This is called an argument from authority. “Such and such smart person believed it was true, so it must be true.” Firstly, there have been many brilliant Christian, Muslim, etc. scholars, yet you probably don’t think that’s a good reason for accepting their religions. Secondly, calling it “malarkey” denigrates what is a sophisticated system for explaining the world that is very convincing in a world where there are no competing explanations. That, coupled with the biases of their upbringing, contributed to these brilliant men’s mistake. And as Avi said, many of them reinterpreted traditional theology to better fit their own worldview, something that is officially unacceptable today.

    > Can't believe I'm going down this road but here goes......the Holocaust proves g-d.

    Of course! We were persecuted, therefore God! As the old joke goes, it’s nice that we’re the chosen nation, but maybe God could choose someone else once in a while.

    The Russians, British and Americans liberated the camps, not God. And remember, we only hear the miraculous stories of the survivors. The people without miraculous stories aren’t around anymore.

    > Hitler impeded his own war effort to kill us!

    All that shows is that Hitler was nuts. Too bad God didn’t allow one of the many assassination attempts to succeed. Better yet, he could have been standing just a little to the left in the trenches during WWI and stopped a bullet or shell fragment.

    > And now throw in the fact that we're still here.

    The Nazis tried to exterminate the Gypsies, too, and they’re also still here. A miracle! Of course, if we weren’t still here, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

    > I don't agree that it can be explained quite nicley by sociological factors, no one else has managed!

    No one has managed what? To survive, or to explain Jewish survival?

    > Just because Chazal got some science wrong is no big deal.

    Nearly all. By the way, I tend to agree with you on this one. If we see Chazal as men of their time, their acceptance of the general wisdom of their time is not a problem. It’s only if we elevate them to infallible demigods that their lack of scientific knowledge becomes problematic.

    > They got a heck of a lot more right on stuff that they were way ahead of their time in (kiddush hachodesh anyone?)

    No. They were not ahead of their time. Kiddush hachodesh? What does looking up at the sky and celebrating the new moon have to do with scientific sophistication? What am I missing here?

    > you just don't find other bodies of knowledge on the same level as Chazal's TSBP.

    That’s an ambiguous statement. On the same level how? Complexity, sophistication, morally, objectively correct? A lot of pirkei avos is nice.

    > Don't bring up stupid vorts people say at simchos, that's irrelevant.

    It’s indicative of people’s relationship to their religion, but all right. Let’s stick to scholasticism and pilpul.

    ReplyDelete
  21. In no particular order;
    Kiddush hachodesh refers to the incredible reporting by R' Gamliel with accuracy to the millionths of a second (at least according to Artscroll!) on the moon's revolution around the earth. No way he know that because of his prowess in astronomy.


    Can't agree with you on your objections to TSPB based on Kaaraites and Tzedukim. A couple of differences, even if backed up by a different approach, do not a wholly developed body of law make. And where is it? Certainly not comparable to Chazal's TSBP.

    Let me turn things around for a second; you guys would have a whole lot stronger argument if you had spent 10-20 years learning. If you knew all of shas, ok one seder, ok one single mesechta! I mean being able to pass a test on Babba Kamma, Gemara, Rashi, Tosfos, Rif, Rosh, Ramabam, then you could say "I know something about this stuff, and it's not convincing."

    As lons as the argument is conducted on your terms, your conclusions are reasonable. It's not that difficult to adopt an attitude that basically, the only thing that we know exists in life is what we can see, and feel, and nothing else is provable.

    But why do you assume that what we observe visually is real? Most of what we perceive visually is an optical illusion (the molecules vibrate too fast for our eyes to pick it up.) I would attribute a greater degree of significance to my intellect. The key issue however is what the criteria for "proof" would be in a debate whose parameters exist only in the intellectual realm. I don't know myself, but I'm working on it.

    Back later.

    ReplyDelete
  22. dylanesque - I'm actually on your side here (as an Orthodox Jew), but your proof from kiddush hachodesh doesn't work. Chazal weren't the only people who knew this at the time, and it actually isn't that hard to work out - and their calendar is not so accurate anyway.

    The following is from Wikipedia (Jewish Calendar - Measurement of month):
    A synodic month is the period between two lunar conjunctions, such as between two new moons. Since the actual length of a synodic month varies by several hours from month to month, the calendar is based on a long-term average length called the mean synodic month. The virtual lunar conjunctions at the start of each mean synodic month are called molads. The mean synodic month used in the Hebrew calendar is exactly days, or 29 days, 12 hours, and 793 parts (44+1/18 minutes) (i.e. 29.5306 days). This interval exactly matches the mean synodic month determined by the Babylonians before 250 BCE[50] and as adopted by the Greek astronomer Hipparchus and the Alexandrian astronomer Ptolemy.

    ReplyDelete
  23. And furthermore...
    Avi claims to lead a moral and rational life. False on both counts. Well maybe it boils down to semantics but what's moral about it? That your social contract works to provide everybody with a pleasant experience? If that's what morality is, it's not worth talking about.

    Rational. What exactly is rational about your life? That you put on clothing to keep warm, and it does the job and keeps you warm? Your lives are anything but rational! (I think G3 agrees with this.) Sensuous and hedonistic would more accurately capture it. Basically, you do what feels good. The sentence "I do what feels right, good, moral," is an absurd sentence.

    This stuff doesn't prove anything, but it should leave you feeling that your lives are absurd and meaningless, even if they are pleasant and enjoyable.

    What makes you intellectually honest? Again, if you told me that you were sacrificing all your time and effort to discover the truth, I could respect that. But just because you reject what doesn't make sense (although perhaps laudable on its own,) doesn't qualify as intellectually honest if you're content to live your life without an intellectually defensible approach.

    (I know, what you meant by intellectually honest was as opposed to me, who accepts things that don't make sense.)

    If you think Tosfos is merely hair splitting scholasticism, I'll beg to differ, and this is one thing I can say from personal experience. But let me take this one step further. Would you grant anything the title of knowledge and wisdom that wasn't hard science? Do you deign to exile all other branches of human intellectual endeavor to the scrap heap of mere conjecture?
    It doesn't appear to me that that's valid. Shakespeare did indeed contribute. I don't know how to express the criteria for knowledge and wisdom but that doesn't mean they don't exist. And in that case, TSBP (in my opinion,)deserves a place above the pantheon of everything else. Admittedly, that judgment call is subjective, but you can only comment on this after you've been widely exposed to it.

    Back to what I started in the last post;
    the only faculty we have to prove anything to is our intellect. Our intellect tells us the following paradox; finite mortal man can never fully fathom infinite immortal g-d. Or as the Kotzker said it (with a nod to Groucho, or was it Woody?) I wouldn't want to be a member of any religion that I could fully understand. So our brains tell us that there is a metaphysical sphere of existence. We can conceive of it, although we can't see it. Intellect beats vision. We also see lots of stuff that points to a g-d. It doesn't prove g-d, as it can be "explained" by merely punting and saying "I don't know what it means, and where it came from." But here's the difference between the two; with the g-d approach, everything makes sense, allowing for the logical paradox mentioned earlier. With the other approach, everything in existence is absurd. So which of these two is the rational approach?

    ReplyDelete
  24. (I couldn't fit this part onto the previous submission)

    J, I appreciate the insight. I guess another strike against Artscroll!

    If you think this is all mental gymnastics, I don't know what to respond. I never considered myself a big philosopher, and I agree that it takes some time and effort to twist your brain around some of the things I wrote but still....
    The one thing that I can say (actually, repeat,) is that your approach is the most irrational of all.

    Finally, now I'm off the intellectual argument and down to touchy feely stuff. I haven't seen a level of happiness, commitment to ideals, community, honesty, and dedication anywhere rivaling that of the frum community. And I am FULLY aware of what goes on. I know all of the scandals, the sex, the fraud, the faking, the hypocrisy, the unhappiness, etc. etc. etc. all of it. And with all of it, there still is an incredible amount of good that far outweighs all the bad. I'm not a sociologist so I don't know, but I'm unaware of another community that has the degree of fulfillment that this community has. Does that mean anything?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Let me turn things around for a second; you guys would have a whole lot stronger argument if you had spent 10-20 years learning.
    Why would I waste 10+ years of my life learning a load of crap written around the 1st century when I could be doing important things (such as studying biology and saving peoples lives)?

    If you knew all of shas, ok one seder, ok one single mesechta!...
    You think I can't? After being in the top Shiur since kindergarten and in Yeshiva for two years after high school I know some gemorah.
    But that is besides the point. Rashi, Tos, Rif, Rosh, Rambam, Rambam, Ralbal, Rabbi Akiva Eiger, Meharsha, so on and so forth ALL assert the same thing: the godliness of a book written by men.

    As lons as the argument is conducted on>your terms, your conclusions are reasonable...
    I assume the minimum necessary to live my life and realize that in theory I *could* be living in the matrix - but this won't affect my life. Any other assumptions above the null hypothesis need to rational basis for me to accept them.

    But why do you assume that what we observe visually is real? ...
    You use too a strong a definition for see. I'd use the words "observe directly or indirectly"
    I would attribute a greater degree of significance to my intellect.
    My intellect could only process what it has gained from observation.

    The key issue however is what the criteria for "proof" would be in a debate whose parameters exist only in the intellectual realm.
    It isn't much of a debate: when you are trying to convince me you use my parameters and when I try to convince you I use yours.
    It might be that one of our standards is warped and the debate would probably begin their instead of on the issue at hand.
    Furthermore, one could rightfully be called a hypocrite (or some other term) if they apply one standard to god and one other (higher) standard to everything else.
    Personally I use the typical standard use by scientists when doing research. Other people use higher standards (philosophical skepticism) or lower standards ("emotion").
    I know of very few people that require zero proof.

    If you think this is all mental gymnastics, I don't know what to respond. I never considered myself a big philosopher, and I agree that it takes some time and effort to twist your brain around some of the things I wrote but still....
    No it doesn't. It is standard Jewish apologetics masquerading as intellectualism. However, I understand that not everyone has done research (nor even knows where) and therefore willing to respond to arguments I've heard thousands of times by "kiruv" workers, random Jews, and comments on the internet.

    The one thing that I can say (actually, repeat,) is that your approach is the most irrational of all.

    That is all you could do - repeat yourself hoping that if you say it enough times maybe we will accept it (a lie repeated often enough becomes true).


    Finally, now I'm off the intellectual argument and down to touchy feely stuff.

    Lets say this touchy feely stuff works for you. The real test for your integrity, as I said before, is what you tell your kids.
    Do you let yours kids go "off the derech" (or as I call it "on their own derech") or you shelter their mind from other ideas because you couldn't bare them to have different feeling then your own.

    I haven't seen a level of happiness, commitment to ideals, community, honesty, and dedication anywhere rivaling that of the frum community.

    Try looking then.

    ReplyDelete

  26. And I am FULLY aware of what goes on. I know all of the scandals, the sex, the fraud, the faking, the hypocrisy, the unhappiness, etc. etc. etc. all of it. And with all of it, there still is an incredible amount of good that far outweighs all the bad.

    the last 5 words are wrong.
    There is nothing good in the Frum community that can't be found elsewhere (except maybe the choulent)

    I'm not a sociologist ...

    What about all the christian communities, muslim communities, hindu communties, etc?

    Does that mean anything?

    If the Jews had some magic recipe to life - then yes. But they don't. The Jews are not better off than most other communities in *any* regard

    ReplyDelete
  27. > Kiddush hachodesh refers to the incredible reporting by R' Gamliel with accuracy to the millionths of a second (at least according to Artscroll!) on the moon's revolution around the earth. No way he know that because of his prowess in astronomy.

    That is more impressive than looking at the sky, but as J explained, it’s hardly an argument for the “otherworldliness” of TSBP.

    > Can't agree with you on your objections to TSPB based on Kaaraites and Tzedukim.

    Where did I “object” to TSBP because of the Kaarites? You made a claim that “there is no TSBP besides ours,” and I pointed out that isn’t so. That’s it. There was no discussion of which body of exegesis is more complex or whether the existence of alternative interpretations invalidates that of Chazal. Incidentally, it’s more than “a couple of differences.” I’m hardly an expert on Kaarite law, but my understanding is that they have their own version of halacha based on their interpretation of the Torah.

    > Let me turn things around for a second; you guys would have a whole lot stronger argument if you had spent 10-20 years learning.

    No, you don’t have to know every detail of something to reject it as untenable. Again, you reject Christianity while admitting that you know next to nothing about it. Wouldn’t your rejection be more convincing had you spent a couple of decades in a Christian seminary? Besides, what exactly do you think I was doing in Yeshiva for all those years?

    > As lons as the argument is conducted on your terms, your conclusions are reasonable. It's not that difficult to adopt an attitude that basically, the only thing that we know exists in life is what we can see, and feel, and nothing else is provable.

    Actually, we can’t be sure of that either. It’s impossible to prove that we’re not brains in a jar. But that’s not a useful way to think about the world, so we assume for convenience’s sake that our perceptions reflect some sort of reality. This doesn’t help your case. That we can’t know anything for certain is not a reason to accept as true everything we can dream up.


    > The key issue however is what the criteria for "proof" would be in a debate whose parameters exist only in the intellectual realm. I don't know myself, but I'm working on it.

    Logic, I suppose.

    > Well maybe it boils down to semantics but what's moral about it? That your social contract works to provide everybody with a pleasant experience? If that's what morality is, it's not worth talking about.

    You’ve got to let go of this idea of morality as an objectively existing construct. You’re absolutely right; it’s not really worth talking about.

    > Your lives are anything but rational! (I think G3 agrees with this.) Sensuous and hedonistic would more accurately capture it. Basically, you do what feels good. The sentence "I do what feels right, good, moral," is an absurd sentence.

    One can attempt to be rational in terms of how one evaluates truth-claims while still being a human being driven by instincts, society, conditioning, and other non-rational factors beyond our control. That said, who here claimed that doing what feels good = moral?

    > This stuff doesn't prove anything, but it should leave you feeling that your lives are absurd and meaningless, even if they are pleasant and enjoyable.

    Yes, life is meaningless. Yes, that’s an unpleasant idea. No, that doesn’t mean God is real.

    ReplyDelete
  28. > … you're content to live your life without an intellectually defensible approach.

    What about my approach isn’t “intellectually defensible?”

    > If you think Tosfos is merely hair splitting scholasticism, I'll beg to differ, and this is one thing I can say from personal experience.

    No, of course it’s not “merely” scholasticism. But it is scholasticism, the mode of academic inquiry popular in Europe at the time it was compiled, and some if it is hair-splitting. The point was not to denigrate tosfos per se, but to counter the claim of the “otherworldliness” of TSBP. Let’s stick to one topic at a time.

    > But let me take this one step further. Would you grant anything the title of knowledge and wisdom that wasn't hard science?

    Knowledge of, say, astrology is still knowledge. That doesn’t mean astrology works. Wisdom is a harder concept to pin down, but yes, there are valuable concepts outside of the hard sciences. (Valuable doesn’t necessarily mean objectively true.)

    > Do you deign to exile all other branches of human intellectual endeavor to the scrap heap of mere conjecture?

    “Deign” means to lower oneself, not arrogate authority to oneself. Anyway, yes. Shakespeare is valuable for reasons other than the objective truth of his statements, and any truth-claims he made without evidence to back them up were indeed mere conjecture.

    > And in that case, TSBP (in my opinion,)deserves a place above the pantheon of everything else. Admittedly, that judgment call is subjective, but you can only comment on this after you've been widely exposed to it.

    A pantheon is the group of gods in a given mythology. Can you explain why you think TSBP is superior to all other forms of knowledge?




    > the only faculty we have to prove anything to is our intellect.

    You’re talking about extreme skepticism, a very interesting philosophical position but one that, in my opinion, isn’t very useful. We may just be brains in jars, but we experience the world and it is therefore useful to at least contingently assume that our perceptions reflect some sort of reality. We can then refine our understanding of the world we perceive through scientific inquiry.

    > Our intellect tells us the following paradox; finite mortal man can never fully fathom infinite immortal g-d.

    Yes. So what? I’m not trying to understand God, I’d just like some proof that He’s real.

    > So our brains tell us that there is a metaphysical sphere of existence.

    Not really. We do seem to intuit the supernatural, but the “metaphysical sphere of existence” is an intellectual construct built over many millennia by many people trying to understand the world around them and make it square with their sense of the supernatural.

    > We can conceive of it, although we can't see it.

    I can conceive of winning the lottery, that doesn’t mean I’m now a millionaire.

    ReplyDelete
  29. > We also see lots of stuff that points to a g-d. It doesn't prove g-d, as it can be "explained" by merely punting and saying "I don't know what it means, and where it came from."

    No, we don’t see anything that “points” to God, merely things for which God is one of many possible explanations. For instance, things may fall to Earth because of gravity or because God wills them to. In this case, the evidence points to gravity to the exclusion of other physical processes. There is nothing that similarly points to God to the exclusion of other processes.

    > But here's the difference between the two; with the g-d approach, everything makes sense,

    Yes, “God did it” is a convenient explanation for everything. That doesn’t make it true.

    > With the other approach, everything in existence is absurd. So which of these two is the rational approach?

    I think you may be equivocating here. That existence may be absurd of because it’s pointless is not the same as an approach being absurd because it’s irrational.

    > The one thing that I can say (actually, repeat,) is that your approach is the most irrational of all.

    As Avi said, repeating something doesn’t make it true. Maybe it’s me, but I’m having trouble understanding exactly what it is about my approach that you find irrational. That something is depressing or doesn’t automatically explain everything doesn’t make it irrational.

    > I haven't seen a level of happiness, commitment to ideals, community, honesty, and dedication anywhere rivaling that of the frum community.

    Let’s assume that’s true. That’s an argument for living a frum lifestyle, not for the truth of Judaism’s claims.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Why would I waste 10+ years of my life learning a load of crap when I could be doing important things (such as studying biology and saving peoples lives)?
    - Define “important.”
    Let ‘em die, who cares?

    - Why? Because said load has been given a 5 star rating by a couple of people who know a thing or two. The argument from authority isn’t enough all by itself, but it’s one more indication that “something is happening (but you don’t know what is… do you Mr. Jones?”) You’re like the uncultured kid saying opera sucks, give me 50 cent. You’ve gotta master a subject before you can comment intelligently about it.


    No it doesn't. It is standard Jewish apologetics masquerading as intellectualism. However, I understand that not everyone has done research (nor even knows where) and therefore willing to respond to arguments I've heard thousands of times by "kiruv" workers, random Jews, and comments on the internet.
    - Don’t agree. It’s true intellectualism. Your argument is based on the premise that to be real, it must be physical. Let me put it this way; what could possibly prove g-d’s existence according to you? Your premise, viz. that the arbiter of reality is the physical, precludes some conlusions viz. that there is a
    g-d who inhabits the metaphysical realm.




    the last 5 words are wrong.
    There is nothing good in the Frum community that can't be found elsewhere
    - an inner feeling of true harmony with existence. Maybe LSD can do that too, but it’s got nasty side effects. By the way, Janis Joplin would agree with you, she held that “reality is for people who can’t handle drugs.” For you, reality is meaningless, it just happens to be there. (Of course all this is not germane to our discussion.)

    .

    Where did I “object” to TSBP because of the Kaarites? You made a claim that “there is no TSBP besides ours,” and I pointed out that isn’t so. That’s it. There was no discussion of which body of exegesis is more complex or whether the existence of alternative interpretations invalidates that of Chazal. Incidentally, it’s more than “a couple of differences.” I’m hardly an expert on Kaarite law, but my understanding is that they have their own version of halacha based on their interpretation of the Torah.
    - My point is that there is no other body of law-wisdom known to man, that explains every aspect of human existence like TSBP. All you guys have is; Maybe everything is indeed meaningless.

    No, you don’t have to know every detail of something to reject it as untenable. Again, you reject Christianity while admitting that you know next to nothing about it. Wouldn’t your rejection be more convincing had you spent a couple of decades in a Christian seminary?
    - Key difference; I reject C because my embrace of Judaism actively tells me C is wrong. You have no such parallel.

    Besides, what exactly do you think I was doing in Yeshiva for all those years?
    - That’s your call if the couple of years you spent learning (and at that stage in your life,) are enough to go on.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Continued...
    Actually, we can’t be sure of that either. It’s impossible to prove that we’re not brains in a jar. But that’s not a useful way to think about the world, so we assume for convenience’s sake that our perceptions reflect some sort of reality. This doesn’t help your case. That we can’t know anything for certain is not a reason to accept as true everything we can dream up.
    - It’s a very useful way. I aim to live primarily according to what my intellects tell me, and it tells me that there are a lot of things that point to g-d. The exquisite multi-step feedback systems in the human body didn’t come from nowhere. If you’re a big believer, you can stick to your belief that perhaps one day we’ll come up with some explanation for everything. It makes more sense to say that there’s a g-d out there. Is that called proof? Perhaps. (That’s what I meant when I said that the criteria for “proof” aren’t clear to me.)
    But even more. Not only, can you not explain complicated stuff, you can’t explain anything! (So this is not the g-d of the gaps.) Why is anything the way it is? True, after I say “g-d did it,” I still have an infinite way to go to actually “understanding.” But that’s irrelevant to our discussion. It still makes more sense to posit a g-d, then to assume nothing at all.

    This then is the crux of my argument;
    there are all these phenomena that seem to indicate a g-d;
    -our mesorah
    -TSBP
    -exquisite nature
    -jewish history
    -the capacity to think abstractly
    and a bunch more.
    Could it be no g-d? Yup.
    Is there any rational reason to assume that? Nope.
    Does the fact that we posit a g-d mean that we understand everything? And does not understanding everything mean it's irrational to believe in g-d? Again, nope.


    >

    ReplyDelete
  32. Finally,
    The question of how I will train my kids....You fail to realize that if you don't bring your kids up with your input, HBO will do the job for you. It doesn't remain tabula rasa.

    Thus I will raise them in the frum way so that when they grow up an start thinking for themselves, they won't be hindered by their preconceived notions from the dark side (rather from my side!)

    ReplyDelete
  33. > You’re like the uncultured kid saying opera sucks, give me 50 cent. You’ve gotta master a subject before you can comment intelligently about it.

    Opera was popular culture once upon a time, and were someone like Mozart alive today he’s be writing pop songs instead of sonatas. Be that as it may, understand that I don’t reject the claims of Judaism because of an imperfect understanding of the gemara, but because I don’t think its claims are true. The existence of God and the historicity of events in the Chumash are what I question, not how smart the ballei tosofos were.

    > Your argument is based on the premise that to be real, it must be physical.

    Close, but not quite. To be real, it must be provable – that is, demonstrable, repeatable, falsifiable, and most importantly, not contradict other things known to be true through better evidence than it has.

    > Let me put it this way; what could possibly prove g-d’s existence according to you?

    I’ve given this a great deal of thought, and honestly, I’m not sure. If we found that the events described in the Chumash had taken place, that would be a start, though not sufficient. If there were concrete, specific prophecies known to have been given before an event and not likely to come true on their own that accurately predicted events, that would also help. If God performed an obvious nature-shattering miracle witnessed by a significant portion of the world’s population every generation or two, and of which we had good records, that would also help. None of these are concrete proof, but taken together they might convince me that believing in God is more reasonable than not.

    Now let’s ask it the other way: Is there anything that would convince you there isn’t a God? Is there some piece or pieces of evidence that your belief rests on that, if shown to be false, would cause you to reconsider your position on God’s existence?

    > There is nothing good in the Frum community that can't be found elsewhere
    > an inner feeling of true harmony with existence. Maybe LSD can do that too, but it’s got nasty side effects.

    EVERY religion can give you that (or so I’ve heard). It’s one of the many useful functions of religion. And isn’t it odd that psychedelic drugs can give a person a religious experience?

    > - My point is that there is no other body of law-wisdom known to man, that explains every aspect of human existence like TSBP. All you guys have is; Maybe everything is indeed meaningless.

    1) I’m not sure that’s true. TSBP encompasses many areas of intellectual endeavor, and treating it as a homogonous block while separating out the similar efforts of other cultures into their component parts doesn’t seem fair. I would think that, say, Islamic law, philosophy, etc. does a similarly good job of covering every aspect of human existence.
    2) Having an explanation and having the right explanation is not the same thing, and no answer is better than the wrong answer.
    3) This is not a competition to see whose philosophy is the most comforting, but a discussion of whether or not Judaism’s core claims are true.
    4) Science, philosophy, and secular law provide many of the same benefits you cite as part of the transcendent nature of TSBP.
    5) What has the all-encompassing reach of TSBP as compared to nihilism have to do with the Kaarites?

    ReplyDelete
  34. > Key difference; I reject C because my embrace of Judaism actively tells me C is wrong. You have no such parallel.

    I see. You have a belief system that you believe to be true, and that system tells you that anything outside the system is false, so you are free to reject it without any further investigation. Fair enough. What we’re discussing is whether that belief system is, in fact, true. I don’t think the evidence is convincing, and so far the evidence you’ve presented boils down to, “X is really complex, therefore God.” So you’re right, I don’t reject Judaism’s claims because I have a competing religious belief that tells me it’s automatically wrong, but because I don’t see any reason for saying it’s true. Studying gemara for a decade wouldn’t change that lack of evidence, as the argument would still be, “Gemara is complex, therefore God,” which is as silly as saying, “The US federal tax code is complex, therefore God.”

    > - That’s your call if the couple of years you spent learning (and at that stage in your life,) are enough to go on.

    That was more of an aside, but really, what would be enough? You made it sound as though I have no idea what a gemara is, and if only I did, surely I would see that Judaism is true. I point out that I have a very good idea what a gemara is, and your response denigrates my experience and implies that if only I’d gone a bit further, then I’d REALLY know. What’s the cutoff? Do I have to be the gadol hador before I’m qualified to comment on the nature of the gemara? Even then, I suppose my opinion wouldn’t really count, because I still wouldn’t be as great as the gadol hador of the last generation.

    Let’s be honest here. What this is is an attempt to brush off my opinions by implying I don’t know what I’m talking about. “Only a few years of learning post-high school? What an ignoramus! If he’d spent a couple of decades in kollel, then maybe we should pay attention, but this guy…?” As such, it doesn’t matter what my level of expertise is. It would never be enough. This is an ad-hominem argument, a fallacious argument that tries to show that an opinion is incorrect because of a flaw in the person who holds the opinion. I do commend you for making the politest form of this argument I’ve ever seen online. However, if my expertise is insufficient, point out where I’m mistaken rather than pointing to my lack of expertise as if that lack alone invalidates my arguments.

    > - It’s a very useful way.

    Okay, I don’t think we’re talking about the same things here. Extreme skepticism a la Descartes is the position that we can’t know anything beyond the fact of our own consciousness – “I think, therefore I am.” After all, we only know about the world through our senses, and our senses may be feeding us false data. We may be disembodied minds being fed false sensory data that creates the illusion of the world. There’s no way to know.

    As I said, I don’t think this is a useful way of relating to the world. Illusion or not, we perceive the world around us and it is practical for us to treat the sense-data we receive as if it were real.

    ReplyDelete
  35. > I aim to live primarily according to what my intellects tell me, and it tells me that there are a lot of things that point to g-d. The exquisite multi-step feedback systems in the human body didn’t come from nowhere.

    1) The human body isn’t anywhere near as perfect as you may think. Its internal plumbing is better suited to a quadruped, its wiring is messy (nerve bundles passing through bones where they’re likely to get pinched), and, well, nipples on males are just a few examples.
    2) Biological evolution does a good job of explaining how these “exquisite systems” developed (and please, let’s not get sidetracked in an irrelevant discussion of the comparative merits of evolution vs. intelligent design).
    3) It’s a very long way from, “something must have caused this,” to, “an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent Being Who created the universe, gave us rules for living and cares about our lives caused this.” There is no reason that God should be the default explanation for everything. Things that are unexplained are just that, unexplained. They are no more evidence for God than they are evidence for magic human-designing pixies.

    > If you’re a big believer, you can stick to your belief that perhaps one day we’ll come up with some explanation for everything. It makes more sense to say that there’s a g-d out there.

    No, I don’t disbelieve in God because I think that one day we’ll come up with explanations for everything, but because I don’t think there’s a good reason to believe He’s real. You treat belief in God as the default position, and only if we can adequately explain everything without Him is it reasonable to reject His existence. My position is that EVERYTHING, including the existence of God, has to be shown to be probable before I’ll accept it as true. That is, the existence of God has to be proven independently. Whether or not we have explanations for other phenomena is not really relevant.

    > But even more. Not only, can you not explain complicated stuff, you can’t explain anything! (So this is not the g-d of the gaps.) Why is anything the way it is? True, after I say “g-d did it,” I still have an infinite way to go to actually “understanding.” But that’s irrelevant to our discussion. It still makes more sense to posit a g-d, then to assume nothing at all.

    No, it doesn’t. Leaving aside your strange assertion that we can’t explain anything, you seem to basically be asking the classic question, “Why is there something instead of nothing?” What you don’t seem to grasp is that “God did it” explains nothing at all. Worst of all, you’re still left with the question, “where did God come from?” Again, that we don’t know something just means that we don’t know. We don’t need a competing explanation that is better than God. God is not the default. The default is, as you say, to assume nothing. All truth-claims should be based on evidence, not on, “I don’t have an explanation, must have been God.” That’s no different than saying, “I don’t have an explanation, must have been the magic pixies.”

    ReplyDelete
  36. > Could it be no g-d? Yup.
    Is there any rational reason to assume that? Nope.

    And here is our problem, summed up very nicely. I don’t need a reason to think there’s no God. I need a reason to think there IS one.

    > Does the fact that we posit a g-d mean that we understand everything? And does not understanding everything mean it's irrational to believe in g-d? Again, nope.

    Our understanding of “everything” is a red herring. The question is, do we have reason to believe there is a God. I think not. You think there is. As reasons for thinking God exists, you list:
    -our mesorah
    -TSBP
    -exquisite nature
    -jewish history
    -the capacity to think abstractly
    and a bunch more.

    1) By the mesorah, I assume you mean something along the lines of the Kuzari, which I already addressed.
    2) I’m still not clear on why you think TSBP is proof of God. Neither the genius of some of its writers nor its complexity are evidence of the Divine, as both are found in other, undisputedly human works.
    3) The complexity of nature is not on its own evidence of God. I realize that this point needs a lot more discussion, and from your point of view it may seem that I’m dismissing it out of hand, so for now let’s just note that arguing for the existence of God from the complexity of nature is the origin of the God of the gaps.
    4) You’ve mentioned Jewish history before. I’d like to be clear on what you mean before I respond.
    5) How is the ability to think indicative of God?
    6) I’d love to hear them.

    ReplyDelete
  37. - Define “important.”
    Let ‘em die, who cares?

    And they say that us atheists are the immoral ones?

    You’re like the uncultured kid saying opera sucks, give me 50 cent.
    You’ve gotta master a subject before you can comment intelligently about it.

    No, its like the kid who was brought up on rap, told that rap was the most important thing in life, mastered rap trivia, could rival the top rap masters on the small minutia of rap only to learn that rap isn't opera.

    Don’t agree. It’s true intellectualism. Your argument is based on the premise that to be real,
    it must be physical.

    No it isn't - it is based on the argument that to be real there has to be evidence.
    Let me put it this way; what could possibly prove g-d’s existence according to you?
    Evidence? But I think you want something better than that. I'd be willing to grant that if a being came to me with a year or so of meteorological predictions it would be all knowing (or any other prophesy that can't be self-fulfilling)
    Your premise, viz. that the arbiter of reality is the physical, precludes some conlusions viz. that there is a
    g-d who inhabits the metaphysical realm.

    Prove to me that there is a metaphysical realm. Your argument presupposes the existence of a metaphysical realm.
    Your committing the petitio principii fallacy.

    ReplyDelete
  38. an inner feeling of true harmony with existence.
    Hinduism, wicca, Yoga, Karate, or billions of other things as well.
    Janis Joplin would agree with you, she held that “reality is for people who can’t handle drugs.”
    Making up our own meaning is fine - unless you happen to assert that it is the ultimate truth and everyone else is inherently wrong.

    For you, reality is meaningless, it just happens to be there. (Of course all this is not germane to our discussion.)
    Reality is externally meaningless - but is certainly not meaningless to me.
    You seem to want to use an argument to the consequences - but are smart enouph to realise how stupid that is. So you use it and then apologize.

    My point is that there is no other body of law-wisdom known to man,
    that explains every aspect of human existence like TSBP.

    sigh. Just because I could make up an internally consistent system (which Judaism is not) does not truth make.
    For example:
    (1) I assert that a invisible pink unicorn knows everything about the universe (and possibly multiverse).
    (2) I assert that this invisible pink unicorn can explain everything about the universe in some manner.
    (3) Assertion (1) and (2) can't be shown to be internally inconsistent
    (I) From (3) I show that (1) and (2) are true.
    This is your argument shown in a comical form - hopefully even you can see that (I) can't hold.

    There are actually two ways to defeat and argument from internal consistency.
    The first is to show that it is actually not internally consistent (this happened to early set theory).
    The second is to show that system S is S⊂U but contradicts a|a∈U.
    This is what we are doing. We are showing that your internally consistent system contradicts some other externally known facts about the world.

    ReplyDelete
  39. All you guys have is; Maybe everything is indeed meaningless.
    I'm sorry you feel like you can't have meaning without someone else telling you what it is.

    Key difference; I reject C because my embrace of Judaism actively tells me C is wrong. You have no such parallel.
    Yes I do - it is called reality
    That’s your call if the couple of years you spent learning (and at that stage in your life,) are enough to go on.
    Funny - as I said I was in the top shiur all that time. Plus I bet that I know more than you with regard to halacha.
    I'll bet serious money that if I watched you for 24 hours I'd find at least 24 things that you didn't know are against halacha.
    But then again this is all all this posturing about knowing minute details of a fantasy is stupid. I don't care for arguments ad homeum

    It’s a very useful way.
    How does knowing your actually a brain in a jar help you?

    I aim to live primarily according to what my intellects tell me, and it tells me that there are a lot of things that point to g-d. The exquisite multi-step feedback systems in the human body didn’t come from nowhere. If you’re a big believer, you can stick to your belief that perhaps one day we’ll come up with some explanation for everything. It makes more sense to say that there’s a g-d out there. Is that called proof? Perhaps. (That’s what I meant when I said that the criteria for “proof” aren’t clear to me.)

    I am to live primarily according to reality. See above about internal consistency
    But even more. Not only, can you not explain complicated stuff, you can’t explain anything!
    Yes we can: see science.

    (So this is not the g-d of the gaps.)

    Arguments via renaming are stupid - this is still god of gaps

    ReplyDelete
  40. Why is anything the way it is?
    Because it follows set rules for how it operates?
    Why? - who cares/who says there *is* is a why?
    True, after I say “g-d did it,”
    I still have an infinite way to go to actually “understanding.”

    So to explain what you can't understand you posit something you can't understand?
    It still makes more sense to posit a g-d, then to assume nothing at all.
    It makes just as much sense to posit a god than to posit Russel's teapot or an invisble pink unicorn.
    Just because you *can* posit something - doesn't mean you should
    This then is the crux of my argument;
    there are all these phenomena that seem to indicate a g-d;
    ... and a bunch more.

    None of these remotely indicate god.
    Could it be no g-d?
    Yes
    Is there any rational reason to assume that? Nope.
    That should be the default assumption - and since there is no evidence to indicate as such should any rational person posit the existence the of a god? No.

    Does the fact that we posit a g-d mean that we understand everything? And does not understanding everything mean it's irrational to believe in g-d? Again, nope.

    Does adding a god to the equation add anything to our understand? No.


    The question of how I will train my kids....
    You fail to realize that if you don't bring your kids up with your input, HBO will do the job for you.

    Well, I will be bringing up my own kids with my own input. And your fantasies won't do anything.
    Thus I will raise them in the frum way so that when they grow up an start thinking for themselves, they won't be hindered by their preconceived notions from the dark side (rather from my side!)
    In other words you will teach to ignore reality and follow there feelings instead of logic?

    ReplyDelete
  41. One last thing:
    A basic class on critical thinking might really help you.

    ReplyDelete
  42. > Your argument is based on the premise that to be real, it must be physical.
    Close, but not quite. To be real, it must be provable – that is, demonstrable, repeatable, falsifiable, and most importantly, not contradict other things known to be true through better evidence than it has.

    - That limits it to physical! Your criteria for proof are valid for the physical world, (from which they were derived,) not for the metaphysical. You can’t use the criteria for proof from within a system to prove the existence of another system. This is a key point in this debate.

    Now let’s ask it the other way: Is there anything that would convince you there isn’t a God? Is there some piece or pieces of evidence that your belief rests on that, if shown to be false, would cause you to reconsider your position on God’s existence?

    - No, I guess not. What it boils down to for me is that an orderly world proves g-d. Watchmaker right?

    1) I’m not sure that’s true. TSBP encompasses many areas of intellectual endeavor, and treating it as a homogonous block while separating out the similar efforts of other cultures into their component parts doesn’t seem fair. I would think that, say, Islamic law, philosophy, etc. does a similarly good job of covering every aspect of human existence.
    2) Having an explanation and having the right explanation is not the same thing, and no answer is better than the wrong answer.
    3) This is not a competition to see whose philosophy is the most comforting, but a discussion of whether or not Judaism’s core claims are true.
    4) Science, philosophy, and secular law provide many of the same benefits you cite as part of the transcendent nature of TSBP.
    5) What has the all-encompassing reach of TSBP as compared to nihilism have to do with the Kaarites?
    - Your points here are well taken, little can be proven from TSBP, although subjectively, I find its depth and breath to be indicative of a higher truth.


    Let’s be honest here. What this is is an attempt to brush off my opinions by implying I don’t know what I’m talking about. “Only a few years of learning post-high school? What an ignoramus! If he’d spent a couple of decades in kollel, then maybe we should pay attention, but this guy…?” As such, it doesn’t matter what my level of expertise is. It would never be enough. This is an ad-hominem argument, a fallacious argument that tries to show that an opinion is incorrect because of a flaw in the person who holds the opinion. I do commend you for making the politest form of this argument I’ve ever seen online. However, if my expertise is insufficient, point out where I’m mistaken rather than pointing to my lack of expertise as if that lack alone invalidates my arguments.
    - Point well taken (consistent with my earlier concession.)



    3) It’s a very long way from, “something must have caused this,” to, “an omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent Being Who created the universe, gave us rules for living and cares about our lives caused this.” There is no reason that God should be the default explanation for everything. Things that are unexplained are just that, unexplained. They are no more evidence for God than they are evidence for magic human-designing pixies.

    - It’s actually not that long a way (relatively speaking!) it just requires a lot of thought, and the willingness to give up cheeseburgers in search of the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  43. It still makes more sense to posit a g-d, then to assume nothing at all.

    No, it doesn’t. Leaving aside your strange assertion that we can’t explain anything, you seem to basically be asking the classic question, “Why is there something instead of nothing?” What you don’t seem to grasp is that “God did it” explains nothing at all.
    - Right and wrong. Mostly wrong. Assuming g-d doesn’t explain why g-d did this and that, but it does explain how everything got here. As I said earlier, saying there is a g-d and I don’t understand Him, is rational. Saying there is no g-d is irrational. It’s a fine and subtle difference, but it’s all the difference in the world.

    And here is our problem, summed up very nicely. I don’t need a reason to think there’s no God. I need a reason to think there IS one.

    - An orderly world.

    ReplyDelete
  44. > - That limits it to physical! Your criteria for proof are valid for the physical world, (from which they were derived,) not for the metaphysical. You can’t use the criteria for proof from within a system to prove the existence of another system. This is a key point in this debate.

    All right, let’s grant for the sake of argument that you’re right. Keeping in mind that this is not at all how Judaism usually portrays it, let’s assume that the metaphysical world is an intangible hodgepodge of non-repeatable random phenomena not amenable to the usual forms of proof. Why is it more reasonable to believe such a non-provable place exists than to assume it doesn’t?

    > - No, I guess not. What it boils down to for me is that an orderly world proves g-d. Watchmaker right?

    Really, really not. And like I keep asking, what do you do about the problem of infinite regress?

    You’re telling me that no matter what, from your point of view you’re right and I’m wrong. That doesn’t seem fair. Oh well.

    > - It’s actually not that long a way (relatively speaking!) it just requires a lot of thought, and the willingness to give up cheeseburgers in search of the truth.

    I’m not sure what this means. I’ve given it a lot of thought, and I’ve come to the exact opposite conclusion that you have. Would you be able to describe your thought process?

    Incidentally, I’ve never had a cheeseburger, or anything else that isn’t kosher. I’ve also never been mechalel shabbos, haven’t touched a girl who isn’t an immediate relative since I turned 13, never eaten on Yom Kippur or TishaB’Av, wash before I eat bread, make brachos before eating food (though that’s mostly force of habit), etc… So your insinuation that the only reason I would reject the “truth” of Judaism is because I don’t want to follow halchah (and the usual corollary, that atheists just want to live a hedonistic lifestyle) falls flat.

    > As I said earlier, saying there is a g-d and I don’t understand Him, is rational. Saying there is no g-d is irrational. It’s a fine and subtle difference, but it’s all the difference in the world.

    I disagree, but let’s not go in circles. You’re making the Prime Mover argument. To which I’ll make the classic rebuttal: Where did God come from? And if it is reasonable to rest at an infinitely complex Being Who’s existence doesn’t need a cause, isn’t it at least equally reasonable to rest at a finitely complex universe?

    > And here is our problem, summed up very nicely. I don’t need a reason to think there’s no God. I need a reason to think there IS one.
    > - An orderly world.

    Yes, the Watchmaker argument. I’ve addressed it in this post: http://2nd-son.blogspot.com/2010/01/search-judaism-critique-chapter-four_21.html

    My point here though was about perspective, not proof. You assume that one should believe in God unless proven otherwise. I assume that one should not believe anything unless proven otherwise. If the Watchmaker argument panned out, that might would change my mind as far as God’s existence is concerned, but it wouldn’t change my requirement for proof before accepting a premise as true. More importantly, were the argument I based my belief in God on disproven, I should then return to the position of assuming His non-existence, while it seems you in a similar position would continue to assume He exists.

    Thank you for the concessions you made. It’s a rare thing to find someone who’s willing to concede a point, and even rarer online.

    ReplyDelete
  45. That limits it to physical! Your criteria for proof are valid for the physical world, (from which they were derived,) not for the metaphysical. You can’t use the criteria for proof from within a system to prove the existence of another system. This is a key point in this debate.
    No - it limits it to the provable. You assume the existence of a metaphysical world and then define your system such that it "proves" it. This is often called circular reasoning.

    It’s actually not that long a way (relatively speaking!) it just requires a lot of thought, and the willingness to give up cheeseburgers in search of the truth.
    It is a very big jump: from a being who passively exists to a being who actively changes the rules of the universe is quite large.

    Right and wrong. Mostly wrong. Assuming g-d doesn’t explain why g-d did this and that, but it does explain how everything got here.

    As I said before: you replace one small unknown (rules of the universe) with a larger unknowable (infinite god)
    As I said earlier, saying there is a g-d and I don’t understand Him, is rational.
    Just because you say so doesn't make it true. Belief that something you can't prove certainly exists is not indicative of sanity.
    Saying there is no g-d is irrational. It’s a fine and subtle difference, but it’s all the difference in the world.
    Nothing fine or subtle about it
    - An orderly world.
    Define order. If you mean lack of entropy then the world is not orderly.

    I'll close with three points:
    1) Would you be willing to place money on your belief? Up until a couple of years ago I was the perfect Halachic Jew. As a Jew I get Olam Habbah - I'll let you buy my share for a measly sum of $10,000. Since Olam Habbah is infinitely better than this world no sum could be too much.
    2) What could convince me of a god? That depends - it requires you to define "god". If you mean the Jewish god then it is a stupid question: what would it take to prove that I'm really a unicorn? Its nonsensical. That god doesn't exist and isn't true.
    3) I noticed you like to use pop culture references so I'll use one myself. Imagine there's no Heaven - It's easy if you try. No hell below us. Above us only sky. Imagine all the people living for today....

    ReplyDelete
  46. All right, let’s grant for the sake of argument that you’re right. Keeping in mind that this is not at all how Judaism usually portrays it, let’s assume that the metaphysical world is an intangible hodgepodge of non-repeatable random phenomena not amenable to the usual forms of proof. Why is it more reasonable to believe such a non-provable place exists than to assume it doesn’t?
    - Because the first watchmaker refutation site I googled said that we end up with two possibilities;
    1- g-d
    2- I don’t know… but no g-d
    But that’s not a position! Surely not a rational position. “I don’t know, but perhaps something will come along, is simply not called “a possibility,” because if we go with that, absolutely nothing is ever provable.
    Also, I don’t know where the line is between logic and intuition but… there are so many things I behold that don’t appear to be explainable in any ay other than
    g-d. Abstract thought. Does it make sense that the ability to think about concepts can come out of nowhere? Thinking about g-d itself, is an incredible achievement. Lomdus. Music. Aesthetic sensibility. It’s illogical to assume these things come out of purely physical realm. They’re so not-physical, that we don’t even have words, much less methods to measure them. To me, this points to g-d. Proof? Not when taken by itself, but when you lump it together with all the other stuff we’ve mentioned, it kinda becomes the only reasonable conclusion.

    Again, you can explain away Matan torah/Kuzari, explain away Jewish survival (“easily explained sociologically,”) anti-semitism (Hitler was nuts,”) orderly world, so many smart guys through the years (Rambam, GRA etc.,) buying in, explain, explain, explain, but in the end, it becomes ludicrous.

    What I’ve alluded to a couple of times but haven’t yet successfully conveyed is that your next question about we understand next-to-nothing about g-d, where did
    g-d come from? etc., is irrelevant. Because once you posit g-d from the watchmaker, then all those other issues become trite. Ok not exactly trite, but they do fit into an overall picture as per the Kotzker’s vort. I don’t know where He came from, but now that lack of info is much less problematic. Now…….it makes sense that we don’t understand that stuff. That might sound funny, but it’s true.


    Really, really not. And like I keep asking, what do you do about the problem of infinite regress?
    -Wikipedia brings Aristotle’s rejoinder, see there.
    Also, the phenomena that I mentioned earliier are demonstrable.

    ?

    > As I said earlier, saying there is a g-d and I don’t understand Him, is rational. Saying there is no g-d is irrational. It’s a fine and subtle difference, but it’s all the difference in the world.

    I disagree, but let’s not go in circles. You’re making the Prime Mover argument. To which I’ll make the classic rebuttal: Where did God come from? And if it is reasonable to rest at an infinitely complex Being Who’s existence doesn’t need a cause, isn’t it at least equally reasonable to rest at a finitely complex universe?
    - See above. This is actually IT. We’re not going in circles, my response answers this problem.

    My point here though was about perspective, not proof. You assume that one should believe in God unless proven otherwise. I assume that one should not believe anything unless proven otherwise. If the Watchmaker argument panned out, that might would change my mind as far as God’s existence is concerned, but it wouldn’t change my requirement for proof before accepting a premise as true. More importantly, were the argument I based my belief in God on disproven, I should then return to the position of assuming His non-existence, while it seems you in a similar position would continue to assume He exists.
    - Not quite. I don’t say we should belive in g-d unless proven otherwise. I say; we should believe in g-d if there’s no other explanation (besides “I don’t know,” or “nothing,”) to fit all these phenomena that beg explanation.
    You however want proof positive, and that wouldn’t leave room for bechira.

    ReplyDelete
  47. That limits it to physical! Your criteria for proof are valid for the physical world, (from which they were derived,) not for the metaphysical. You can’t use the criteria for proof from within a system to prove the existence of another system. This is a key point in this debate.
    No - it limits it to the provable. You assume the existence of a metaphysical world and then define your system such that it "proves" it. This is often called circular reasoning.
    No. It’s called thinking out of the box. Your parameters of proof are inapplicable for our discussion.

    It is a very big jump: from a being who passively exists to a being who actively changes the rules of the universe is quite large.
    - Yeah, but once I get to His existence, I’m at a different starting place for further discussion.

    Right and wrong. Mostly wrong. Assuming g-d doesn’t explain why g-d did this and that, but it does explain how everything got here.
    As I said before: you replace one small unknown (rules of the universe) with a larger unknowable (infinite god)
    - I tried to explain this earlier to G3. Briefly, the one small unknown you refer to wouldn’t answer anything even if I knew it. My unknown changes everything, while at the same time leaving many unanswered issues. That does not change the fact that playing field is unrecognizable. There’s a big picture now. That’s called an answer.


    As I said earlier, saying there is a g-d and I don’t understand Him, is rational.
    Just because you say so doesn't make it true. Belief that something you can't prove certainly exists is not indicative of sanity.
    - Do you know what the word “rational” means?
    - An orderly world.
    Define order. If you mean lack of entropy then the world is not orderly.
    -It is to a nonbiased observer.

    I'll close with three points:
    1) Would you be willing to place money on your belief? Up until a couple of years ago I was the perfect Halachic Jew. As a Jew I get Olam Habbah - I'll let you buy my share for a measly sum of $10,000. Since Olam Habbah is infinitely better than this world no sum could be too much.
    - I’d definitely buy it, if you still had it to sell. But let’s go the other way! Sell me whatever you have for $1.00 (This is an old chassidishe story.)

    2) What could convince me of a god? That depends - it requires you to define "god". If you mean the Jewish god then it is a stupid question: what would it take to prove that I'm really a unicorn? Its nonsensical. That god doesn't exist and isn't true.
    -You mean you’re SURE that such a g-d is definitely not true?

    3) I noticed you like to use pop culture references so I'll use one myself. Imagine there's no Heaven - It's easy if you try. No hell below us. Above us only sky. Imagine all the people living for today....
    John was a great and creative musician, but a cheap lousy philosopher.

    ReplyDelete
  48. One more point.
    We see all around us and through the generations a human need. A need to....hard to express exactly, but a need to create (Eiffel Tower,) to contribute (Mother Theresa, Steven Jobs,) to leave a mark here in any stupid way possible (hit the most home runs.) Where does that come from? It's unexplainable. One more unexplainable thing.
    Why do people do drugs? What are they searching for? Cows are quite happy, why aren't humans?
    "Why don't we (indeed) do it in the road?" (John again)
    Why are we so inhibited with our bodies and sexually? Where does all that come from? And it's a mighty hard one to break.

    I know, explanations, explanations, explanations. Why ignore the obvious? There's a g-d. We're created in his image and thus we long for infinity, spirituality and true existence.
    Proof? Hardly. But just one mor indication....

    ReplyDelete
  49. “I don’t know, but perhaps something will come along, is simply not called “a possibility,”
    because if we go with that, absolutely nothing is ever provable.

    When you don't know something it is rational to say "I don't know". When you have proven something it is rational to say "I know ....". When you don't know it is not rational to say "god".

    Also, I don’t know where the line is between logic and intuition but…
    And this is your problem. Logic is based on proof. Intuition is based on feelings.
    there are so many things I behold that don’t appear to be explainable in any ay other than
    g-d. Abstract thought. Does it make sense that the ability to think about concepts can come out of nowhere? ...

    it isn't out of nowhere - it came out of the biological proccess of evolution. Furthermore throughout history there have been many things that we thought were unexplainable without a "god" (such as why the sun shines, how the earth stays up without turtles, etc) but were eventually explained. Why bother to assume the existence of a being that will likely be explained correctly later. If god is the unexplainable then god is shrinking all the time

    ReplyDelete
  50. orderly world
    You have yet to define order. If you mean lack of entropy - than order doesn't exist. You need to define order first. Then you to show that the existence of order proves god. Then you need to prove that order exists. If any of those three things fail then your proof fails
    so many smart guys through the years (Rambam, GRA etc.,) buying in, explain, explain, explain, but in the end, it becomes ludicrous.
    Keep in mind that the Rambam modified Jewish theology to match his own perceptions. The Rambam for example denies the existance of other gods but the pre-rabbinic Jews were henotheistic. The Rambam did the best he can given his lack of current scientific knowledge (evolution, gravity, etc).
    Also there are hundreds of smart Christians, Muslims, and atheists (Albert Einstein for all intents and purposes was an atheist)
    Now…….it makes sense that we don’t understand that stuff. That might sound funny, but it’s true.
    So because we can't prove god - god is proven. That is the most ridiculous claim I've heard to date (including the bablefish argument).

    - Not quite. I don’t say we should belive in g-d unless proven otherwise. I say; we should believe in g-d if there’s no other explanation (besides “I don’t know,” or “nothing,”) to fit all these phenomena that beg explanation.
    But how could we know there is no other explanation. I don't know something and I'm honest - I don't know. You don't know something you call it "god".
    You however want proof positive, and that wouldn’t leave room for bechira.
    Human beings are not rational (proof: religion) - you could still have bechira with proof of god.

    ReplyDelete
  51. No. It’s called thinking out of the box. Your parameters of proof are inapplicable for our discussion.
    Thinking out of the box means being creative about solutions - nothing to do with proof. My paremeters allow me to think about reality in a way that only true things are accepted - and just because someone can think of a internally consistent system doesn't make it true.
    Just because all of A are consistent within S doesn't make S true. You need to prove that S is a subset of U.
    Yeah, but once I get to His existence, I’m at a different starting place for further discussion.
    Well it depends how you define god. If you define god as a passive watcher of things - or even as the Prime Mover - his existence doesn't help prove the Abrahamic god.

    I tried to explain this earlier to G3. Briefly, the one small unknown you refer to wouldn’t answer anything even if I knew it. My unknown changes everything, while at the same time leaving many unanswered issues. That does not change the fact that playing field is unrecognizable. There’s a big picture now. That’s called an answer.
    There is no big picture - just a giant unknowable mess. It isn't called an "answer" - its called a copout. "I'm too lazy to actually research reality so I'll call this thing 'god' and be done with it".
    Do you know what the word “rational” means?
    • adjective 1 based on or in accordance with reason or logic. 2 able to think sensibly or logically. 3 having the capacity to reason.
    http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/rational?view=uk
    It is to a nonbiased observer.
    Actually entropy exists according to the unbiased observer. Please define order.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I’d definitely buy it, if you still had it to sell. But let’s go the other way! Sell me whatever you have for $1.00 (This is an old chassidishe story.)
    I'll sell it to the highest bidder. I'm sure I could get more than a dollar.
    You mean you’re SURE that such a g-d is definitely not true?
    As sure as one could reasonably be (in other words - ignoring decart's demon)
    John was a great and creative musician, but a cheap lousy philosopher.
    Your right - he should have left out the word "imagine".

    We see all around us and through the generations a human need. A need to....hard to express exactly, but a need to create (Eiffel Tower,) to contribute (Mother Theresa, Steven Jobs,) to leave a mark here in any stupid way possible (hit the most home runs.) Where does that come from? It's unexplainable. One more unexplainable thing.
    Evolution - and even if evolution didn't exist - god of the gaps argument.
    Why do people do drugs?
    And Jews don't do drugs (aka - are all Jews happy)?
    People do drugs for same reason they do anything else - it makes them feel better.
    Cows are quite happy, why aren't humans?
    Not all cows are happy. But to answer you - because Humans have far more complex emotions than other animals.
    Why are we so inhibited with our bodies and sexually? Where does all that come from? And it's a mighty hard one to break.
    Mostly from religious myth taught over the centuries as well as evolved morality. Same reason that up until recently most people were homophobic.

    ReplyDelete
  53. I know, explanations, explanations, explanations.
    Religion?
    Why ignore the obvious?
    I don't
    We're created in his image and thus we long for infinity, spirituality and true existence.
    Oh, so this "god" construct has an image? I thought he was infinite.
    Proof? Hardly. But just one mor indication....
    I like coke. You like Pepsi. Just because you /like/ god doesn't mean it exists.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I think this link is very relevant (refutes the argument by design)
    http://www.alternet.org/belief/145998/why_%27life_had_to_have_been_designed%27_is_a_terrible_justification_for_god%27s_existence_?page=entire

    ReplyDelete
  55. For the first time in this conversation, you haven’t added anything new, there’s no good point here to stimulate me to answer. I think I’ve made my point, you either don’t understand it or just don’t agree. Your prerogative. Like you said, we’re not here to convince one another, so I will respond only to a couple of little nuances, ask you a couple of questions out of curiosity and then wish you well.

    When you don't know something it is rational to say "I don't know". When you have proven something it is rational to say "I know ....".
    - Back to square 1, what’s called “proof?”

    Also, I don’t know where the line is between logic and intuition but…
    And this is your problem. Logic is based on proof. Intuition is based on feelings.
    - No, I refuse to merely dismiss things completely if they don’t constitute a total proof all by themselves, like you do. For you, it’s either totally proven, or a feeling. Too simplistic (but it is easy and convenient for you.)


    Abstract thought. Does it make sense that the ability to think about concepts can come out of nowhere? ...

    it isn't out of nowhere - it came out of the biological proccess of evolution.
    -If you believe that, well….you’re a big believer!

    Furthermore throughout history there have been many things that we thought were unexplainable without a "god" (such as why the sun shines, how the earth stays up without turtles, etc) but were eventually explained.
    -Not explained, merely described.
    NOTHING has been explained.

    You have yet to define order. If you mean lack of entropy - than order doesn't exist. You need to define order first. Then you to show that the existence of order proves god. Then you need to prove that order exists. If any of those three things fail then your proof fails
    - Order is relative. Yeah, that means there’s an element of subjectivity in it. Study some nature; Biology, Biochemistry, Physiology, Microbiology, Zoology, Astronomy, and on and on and on…..250 PhD’s and you still won’t be finished. If you don’t see (astounding) order there, I can’t help you.
    -
    Keep in mind that the Rambam modified Jewish theology to match his own perceptions.
    - Can’t comment as I don’t know enough (anything actually,) about it.
    But the Rambam seems to have accepted the authority and authenticity of Chazal giving the lie to your bold assertion.

    Also there are hundreds of smart Christians, Muslims, and atheists (Albert Einstein for all intents and purposes was an atheist)
    -The Christians and Muslims believe in g-d, and that’s what we’re debating here. I’m not sure Einstein was an atheist (not that I care about this.) How about Newton? How about today’s physicists?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Now…….it makes sense that we don’t understand that stuff. That might sound funny, but it’s true.
    So because we can't prove god - god is proven. That is the most ridiculous claim I've heard to date (including the bablefish argument).
    -You’ve missed this point twice now. (No shame there, the Kotzker was pretty smart.) Think about it.

    - Not quite. I don’t say we should belive in g-d unless proven otherwise. I say; we should believe in g-d if there’s no other explanation (besides “I don’t know,” or “nothing,”) to fit all these phenomena that beg explanation.
    But how could we know there is no other explanation. I don't know something and I'm honest - I don't know. You don't know something you call it "god".
    - Ditto above.

    No. It’s called thinking out of the box. Your parameters of proof are inapplicable for our discussion.
    Thinking out of the box means being creative about solutions - nothing to do with proof.
    -You’re too narrow minded to conduct this conversation . Think out of the box about how to prove something in a different realm.
    .

    We see all around us and through the generations a human need. A need to....hard to express exactly, but a need to create (Eiffel Tower,) to contribute (Mother Theresa, Steven Jobs,) to leave a mark here in any stupid way possible (hit the most home runs.) Where does that come from? It's unexplainable. One more unexplainable thing.
    Evolution - and even if evolution didn't exist - god of the gaps argument.
    -Weak.


    Why do people do drugs?
    And Jews don't do drugs (aka - are all Jews happy)?
    - Obviously, totally irrelevant.

    People do drugs for same reason they do anything else - it makes them feel better.
    - You miss the point. They’re searching for something. They feel they’re lacking something. That’s what they need to feel better about.

    Mostly from religious myth taught over the centuries as well as evolved morality.
    - That’s funny; “evolved morality.”
    This is not my chiddush; your belief in evoloution is stronger than mine in g-d! Everything we can't explain....evolution will save us!

    ReplyDelete
  57. And finally I have a question.
    This doesn't prove anything but I'm curious, why don't you do anything you want to do? (assuming no consequences of course.)
    I'm curious as to how you run your life. What would you say to your 12 year old son who confided in you that he just thoroughly enjoyed raping grandma? Better, what would you say if he asked you your opinion before he did it?

    ReplyDelete
  58. I’m still on what you wrote yesterday, so for now I’m not going to respond to your response to Avi.

    > - Because the first watchmaker refutation site I googled said that we end up with two possibilities;
    1- g-d
    2- I don’t know… but no g-d
    But that’s not a position! Surely not a rational position. “I don’t know, but perhaps something will come along, is simply not called “a possibility,” because if we go with that, absolutely nothing is ever provable.

    No no no. You keep repeating the same mistake over and over. I don’t reject God because I have a different, competing explanation for every possible phenomenon. I don’t need to explain everything without God in order to reject His existence, and I am not relying on, “maybe someday we’ll come up with some other explanation.” God remains one of an infinite number of possibilities for explaining any given phenomena which we don’t yet understand, but He is not automatically more plausible than any other. It’s not “God“ or “Um, uh, don’t know, but not God.” It’s “I don’t know. Let’s try and find out without making any unfounded assumptions.” Once again, try and understand that God is not the default!

    > Also, I don’t know where the line is between logic and intuition but… there are so many things I behold that don’t appear to be explainable in any ay other than g-d.

    Logic is a formal discipline.

    > Abstract thought. Does it make sense that the ability to think about concepts can come out of nowhere?

    This argument can be phrased: I don’t understand this, therefore God.

    > Lomdus. Music. Aesthetic sensibility. It’s illogical to assume these things come out of purely physical realm.

    Um, why? Music is vibrations in the air. Thought is achieved by neurons firing in your brain. Aesthetic sensibility (including musical appreciation) is partly biological and partly cultural, but not at all metaphysical.

    ReplyDelete
  59. > It’s illogical to assume these things come out of purely physical realm.

    That the concept “music” doesn’t have the same sort of physical representation as the concept “chair” doesn’t make its origins metaphysical. Music is written by a physical person, composed using his mind which is an emergent property of his physical brain, played on physical instruments which produce physical sound waves in the physical air which impact on the physical ears of the audience and transmit physical electrical impulses via their physical nerves to their physical brains where physical neural structures interpret the physical signals as ‘music’ and send out other physical electric signals that trigger the physical release of neurotransmitters and hormones to produce the pleasurable experience we call listening to music.

    Is that physical enough?

    > explain, explain, explain, but in the end, it becomes ludicrous.

    Fallacious proofs do not magically become correct when presented in large numbers. They are wrong individually and they remain wrong when presented collectively.

    > what do you do about the problem of infinite regress?
    > -Wikipedia brings Aristotle’s rejoinder, see there.

    Let me explain clearly what I mean, and then let’s see if Aristotle is relevant. The Watchmaker argument for God can be stated as follows:

    1. All things which are complex / appear designed are designed.
    2. All things which are designed must have a designer.
    3. The universe is complex / appears designed.
    4. (From 1 and 2) The universe was designed and has a designer.
    C. The designer is God.

    There are a number of problems with this argument, such as that premise 1 may not be true and that the conclusion is a non-sequitur. Right now we are addressing infinite regress, the problem that we can drop God into the syllogism and come up with a God-creator:
    1. All things which are complex / appear designed are designed.
    2. All things which are designed must have a designer.
    3. God is infinitely complex.
    4. (From 1 and 2) God was designed and has a designer.
    C. God’s designer is ??.

    Anything that could design God would have to be even more complex, which would similarly imply a designer, ad infinitum.

    Aristotle’s contention, if I understand it correctly, is that we can arrive at the conclusion that something caused the universe without worrying about what caused the cause: the ultimate cause of everything is not important for understanding specific phenomena. However, a being which itself has a cause is by definition not God, and therefore the problem of infinite regress is relevant here.

    To be clear: This is not a knowledge problem like the one Aristotle describes, where it is claimed that we cannot understand premise one without fully understanding premise 2, which in turn cannot be understood without premise 3… Instead, the problem is that the proof itself relies on the assumption that everything must be caused, yet to solve the problem of the universe’s cause posits an even more complex phenomenon which is then claimed to itself be uncaused. The same logic that shows the universe must be caused also shows that God must be caused, a notion at odds with the traditional conception of God. If it is then claimed that God is a special case that doesn’t need a cause, why not make the same claim for the universe itself, and discard the notion of God as a superfluous complication?

    ReplyDelete
  60. > I don’t say we should belive in g-d unless proven otherwise. I say; we should believe in g-d if there’s no other explanation (besides “I don’t know,” or “nothing,”) to fit all these phenomena that beg explanation.

    What’s the difference between believing in God until proven otherwise and believing in God unless there are explanations for all phenomena? Either way, you are taking God as the default position. His existence is assumed. There’s nothing wrong with not having an explanation for something, and if you do have an explanation, it should be better than, “a wizard did it.” God = A wizard did it.

    > No. It’s called thinking out of the box. Your parameters of proof are inapplicable for our discussion.

    “Thinking out of the box” means coming up with novel, unexpected solutions to problems, not disregarding what you’re trying to accomplish. About a decade ago, someone had the bright idea to arm Air Force drones with missiles designed for Army helicopters. That was thinking out of the box. What you’re suggesting is more like abandoning the idea of missiles and drones altogether and instead using balloons full of confetti. That’s not thinking out of the box, its coming up with something completely different and irrelevant.

    Part of the problem here is that we’re asking different questions. My question is, “Does God exist?” Your question is, “God exists: how do I prove it?”

    > It is a very big jump: from a being who passively exists to a being who actively changes the rules of the universe is quite large.
    > - Yeah, but once I get to His existence, I’m at a different starting place for further discussion.

    Yes, you’re right. That doesn’t explain how you get from the Prime Mover to God. And, like I said above, I don’t think you’re getting to His existence, but are instead assuming it and, as you say, starting from a different place. That may be why you keep assuming that belief in God is the default.

    > - I tried to explain this earlier to G3. Briefly, the one small unknown you refer to wouldn’t answer anything even if I knew it. My unknown changes everything, while at the same time leaving many unanswered issues. That does not change the fact that playing field is unrecognizable. There’s a big picture now. That’s called an answer.

    There does not have to be a single answer to everything. That understanding one detail doesn’t automatically let us understand everything doesn’t negate the understanding we have of that detail.

    Yes, positing God changes the way one views the world. That assuming something changes your worldview doesn’t make it real. Assuming that the wizarding world of the Harry Potter universe is real would completely change our understanding of the world. That doesn’t mean that there really are wizards.

    Let’s take a specific case, and ask, “why do things fall to Earth?” proposing that they do so because it’s God’s will doesn’t tell us anything. A theory of gravity involving mass and attraction does explain why things fall to Earth. Adding that masses attract each other because it’s God’s will again adds nothing to our understanding of why things fall to Earth.

    Also, as I mentioned above, the explanation should be better than, “A wizard did it.” Saying that objects fall to Earth because God wills it and saying that objects fall to Earth because a wizard magically causes each object to fall gives us exactly the same understanding of falling objects.

    ReplyDelete
  61. > Where does that come from? It's unexplainable. One more unexplainable thing.

    Again, this can be stated as. “I don’t understand this, therefore God.

    > Why do people do drugs? What are they searching for? Cows are quite happy, why aren't humans?

    People do drugs because it makes them feel good and because they become addicted to it. It’s simple conditioning. Put an electrode in the pleasure center in a rat’s brain and give it a lever to stimulate itself with and it’ll keep pressing the lever until it dies of exhaustion. It’s not “searching” for anything.

    How do you know cows are happy? For that matter, why would you assume that cows’ emotional states are analogous to those of humans? Can a cow feel happy? Anyway, some humans are happy. Others aren’t. And each person has different reasons for being happy or not.

    > Why ignore the obvious? There's a g-d. We're created in his image and thus we long for infinity, spirituality and true existence.
    Proof? Hardly. But just one mor indication....

    Saying something doesn’t make it so. It’s not at all obvious that there’s a God, or we wouldn’t be having this conversation. That the Torah says we’re created b’tzelem Elokim doesn’t make it so. We “long for infinity” because we have the dubious gift of being aware of our own mortality and the thought of fading into nothingness, without even a trace that we ever existed, terrifies most of us. We’re “spiritual” because we’re wired that way – because in many situations, supernatural beliefs can be useful. That a concept is useful doesn’t mean that it’s objectively real.

    If you think you have good reasons for believing in God, that’s your prerogative. Recognize though that you are starting by assuming He exists and then recruiting feelings, knowledge gaps, and your sense that esoteric phenomena must have metaphysical explanations to shore up your belief. Were you not assuming God’s existence as a starting point, though, you probably wouldn’t find any of your proofs any more convincing than I do.

    I’ve enjoyed our conversation, but it is starting to get repetitive. God’s (and gods’) existence has been debated for millennia. The arguments for and against all have names, and all of the debates tend to follow the same exchange of arguments and rebuttals. As I keep saying, the problem is one of perspective. The atheist assumes that God must be proven like any other phenomenon, while the theist assumes that God is real and finds the notion that His existence should be subject to investigation to be either laughable or offensive. If you’re interested, there are many resources online that explain the classic theological arguments and counter-arguments. Meanwhile, I’d like to get back to my project of deconstructing “Judaism’s Answers.”

    ReplyDelete
  62. Well, I too have enjoyed conversing with you, and feel I have been enlightened by our exchange. I disagree with your claim that I assume that the default position is g-d, without any evidence, (as well as some other stuff,) but we're not going to get started all over again.
    I guess I'll close by wishing you a nice life.
    Bye.

    ReplyDelete