Quick introduction for those who don't know: Jews believe that the Torah is the word of Hashem, god, and is perfect. They also believe that you can't fully comprehend the Torah without the Talmud, which is also the word of god, but explained through sages who were big Tzaddikim and are (almost) infallible.
With that being said, most people are unaware of how crazy and anti-scientific the claims in these books are (including lots of Jews!). So without further ado, let's jump right in!
Sukkah 29a:
ת"ר בזמן שהחמה לוקה סימן רע לכל העולם כולו משל למה הדבר דומה למלך בשר ודם שעשה סעודה לעבדיו והניח פנס לפניהם כעס עליהם ואמר לעבדו טול פנס מפניהם והושיבם בחושך
Our Rabbis taught: When the sun is in eclipse it is a bad omen for the whole world. To what can this be compared? To a flesh and blood king who made a banquet for his servants and put a lamp in front of them. When he got angry with them he said to his servant, "Take the lamp away from them, and let them sit in the dark."
So eclipses are a "bad omen"? The modern definition of omen is "an event regarded as a portent of good or evil." Note the word regarded. The question is, regarded by whom? And is that "regarding" rationally justifiable? Without any evidence, how could it be? Furthermore, assuming there is a god who is the god of the Torah (the omni-god), if he wanted to communicate with humans ... why is he orchestrating eclipses to attempt to show that he is displeased? Why can't he just use his words?
The reasons that eclipses are not a valid or intelligent means of communication goes even deeper. I'm not great at math, but I understand that, with any simple system of a sun and some planets orbiting it, and moons, you are going to get a specific time when one planetary body blocks the sun from shining on another. It's simple physics. These planets all share space and time, so it's natural for blocking of light to occur. To then extrapolate that using a cheesy metaphor of a king who is angry with his servants speaks more about the humans who are talking than the supposed "god" who is angry.
Remember, in the past, humans had no idea when eclipses were going to occur, since we didn't understand how gravity and orbits worked. But with Newton's understanding, and then Einstein's, we can calculate when and where eclipses are going to occur - easily. In fact, Wikipedia has a page: List of solar eclipses in the 21st century. This means, if you're so inclined, you can know exactly that on September 4, 2100, an eclipse is going to occur for 3:32 seconds in Central Africa and Madagascar. (In fact, we can calculate ALL upcoming eclipses until the earth ceases to exist, if we want to.) However, why is this relevant? Because under a naturalistic assumption, this all makes perfect sense. But if you assume a god ... how can a god get angry if we know WHEN he's going to be angry? And he presumably knows! So he sets up a time when he's going to get angry, just to get angry? And getting to the analogy: With the flesh-and-blood king, I guess it could make sense that a king gets angry (however, his anger would still need to be justified). But here's what Judaism seems to never grasp: WHY is the king getting angry? With a human king, I realize he can be surprised, or upset, or even psychopathic. But with Hashem, you'd presumably have none of those human emotions. So the analogy is flawed right from the beginning.
Even if Jews really believed that their sins (aveiros) actually caused a god to become angry and demonstrate that anger in the form of an eclipse, they may not have thought about the simple fact: even if all people stopped doing whatever "sins" Judaism prohibits ... eclipses are still going to happen, right on time! So if everyone was the biggest Tzadik in the world, Hashem would still be throwing temper tantrums? So it seems there's no way to stop god from getting angry. Looks pretty abusive.
Remember, in the past, humans had no idea when eclipses were going to occur, since we didn't understand how gravity and orbits worked. But with Newton's understanding, and then Einstein's, we can calculate when and where eclipses are going to occur - easily. In fact, Wikipedia has a page: List of solar eclipses in the 21st century. This means, if you're so inclined, you can know exactly that on September 4, 2100, an eclipse is going to occur for 3:32 seconds in Central Africa and Madagascar. (In fact, we can calculate ALL upcoming eclipses until the earth ceases to exist, if we want to.) However, why is this relevant? Because under a naturalistic assumption, this all makes perfect sense. But if you assume a god ... how can a god get angry if we know WHEN he's going to be angry? And he presumably knows! So he sets up a time when he's going to get angry, just to get angry? And getting to the analogy: With the flesh-and-blood king, I guess it could make sense that a king gets angry (however, his anger would still need to be justified). But here's what Judaism seems to never grasp: WHY is the king getting angry? With a human king, I realize he can be surprised, or upset, or even psychopathic. But with Hashem, you'd presumably have none of those human emotions. So the analogy is flawed right from the beginning.
Even if Jews really believed that their sins (aveiros) actually caused a god to become angry and demonstrate that anger in the form of an eclipse, they may not have thought about the simple fact: even if all people stopped doing whatever "sins" Judaism prohibits ... eclipses are still going to happen, right on time! So if everyone was the biggest Tzadik in the world, Hashem would still be throwing temper tantrums? So it seems there's no way to stop god from getting angry. Looks pretty abusive.
And once we go down the rabbit-hole, we can't stop. So all the other hundreds of billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars and planets are all experiencing, at some point in time, hundreds of billions of eclipses ... with no human to see those and regard as communication from a god. Why is Hashem speaking to no one? It's like a kid who keeps dialing a phone number that he knows is out of order, and yet does it anyway. Is god bored? Stupid? Both? Or maybe, there is no communication from a god. Maybe there's just planets - LOTS of them. And eclipses happen all the time.
However, we would expect ignorant humans who assumed, a priori, that a god existed, that they'd see him "communicating" everywhere. This is probably a form of apophenia, which is the psychological tendency to perceive connections and meaning between unrelated stimuli - when there is no true meaning or connection. It's a form of cognitive bias - and thus, is an unreliable method to determine if something is true.
However, we would expect ignorant humans who assumed, a priori, that a god existed, that they'd see him "communicating" everywhere. This is probably a form of apophenia, which is the psychological tendency to perceive connections and meaning between unrelated stimuli - when there is no true meaning or connection. It's a form of cognitive bias - and thus, is an unreliable method to determine if something is true.
This is why skepticism is important before accepting any claim made by anyone. Then, if they say something crazy, you disregard it and continue with your life. But if you're not skeptical, you might start becoming terrified whenever you see an eclipse in the sky - for no valid reason at all.
And that would be something to worry about.
And that would be something to worry about.
This piece of gemara is a detail of a detail of a detail concerning one aspect of the Torah, and yet it is the only thing you can come up with to be included in the "craziest claims of Judaism"? And then there's the fact that most of these comments are not meant to be taken literally; someone who fails to see this will undoubtedly miss the opportunity to see the forest for the trees.
ReplyDeleteThe gemara is not a textbook of science, and neither is the Torah. That is not the goal of these teachings, so making the claim that they are "anti-scientific" simply reveals that the glasses you wear when reading chazal consist of a poorly prescribed lens. As it is with most of the statements on your blog, the conclusion here is not atheism, but rather a frameshift in the manner in which you study Torah. It's good that you're asking questions, and if the role models in your life answer them nonsensically then it's time to start reading the more intelligent and rational commentaries, ancient or modern, to the Torah. Atheism is a cop-out, at least for someone whose claims lack the appropriate depth that would show they've actually thought everything through. Don't take the easy way out. You recognize the flaws in what you've been taught; that's good, it's about time you start using your kop. Now go learn.
What evidence is there that the commentaries themselves are valid interpretations for anything in the Torah ? I suggest studying Ancient Near East culture, literature, language, myth, and religions to enable a better understanding of the Torah.
Delete"And then there's the fact that most of these comments are not meant to be taken literally; someone who fails to see this will undoubtedly miss the opportunity to see the forest for the trees. " Who gets to make this determination for specific verse etc: I think this is most used as a ploy to avoid having something being falsified. Turns the Torah into a meaningless document.
Delete@Alter Cocker Jewish Atheist
DeleteJust because something is allegorical does not turn it into a meaningless document. The point of these non-literal teachings is to convey a profound concept to add layers to the plain story. The tortoise and the hare never happened, yet its message is everlasting. This is drash.
You ask "who gets to make this determination"? Different Jews will offer different answers to that. But when it comes to teachings that contradict science, I think that's a good indicator that the teaching is metaphorical and don't think you need to be an atheist to understand them in that manner.
Your suggestion of studying ancient culture and language as a method of better understanding the Torah is all cool with me. I don't see any problem with that, and neither did the earlier commentaries who on occasion quote Sumerian dialect or practice to better explain a principle in the Torah. I don't think people should shy away from Hammurabi's code, for example, because they may come to a conclusion that the Torah copied from somewhere else. I myself recognize that the legal code of Judaism was very intertwined with the pagan rituals of those times, and its goal was to curb the centerpiece of those religions, that being the amoral pagan gods, to a monotheistic moral God who desired us to be moral. This is not a novel approach, and can be found in some of the earlier commentaries, although it's not as publicized.
In the end of the day, if those foreign wisdoms are helping you understand the Torah then why should that be a problem? Go for it. You just have to be your own judge if you're using those pagan teachings to understand the Torah or if you're trying to fit the Torah into those pagan teachings.
As an aside: If your blog would allow me to post comments then I'd go ahead and do that. But since it doesn't then instead of posting the link, I think a more constructive way to have this dialogue is to bring in some of your points (not too many at a time because then it'll be hard to keep this going) on this forum and I'd be happy to read them, think about them, and respond to them accordingly.
Looking forward!
I think the Torah does fit in with some pagan teachings - read my blog posts - here is a very short list http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2018/03/psalms-ancient-near-east-texts-prayer_21.html and http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014/03/explanations-of-pagan-customs-in_18.html
Delete"In the end of the day, if those foreign wisdoms are helping you understand the Torah then why should that be a problem?" It is not a problem for me. It is a problem for the religious who have to twist themselves into a pretzel to defend the Torah.
I suggest first reading my http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014/04/some-reasons-to-reject-orthodox-judaism_2.html to see some of my concerns. For exampe #4, #5, #8 Can you respond to any of those ?
Side point 1) BTW Why do you say the pagan gods were amoral ? I suppose some may have been, but not all of them and I am not even sure a majority of them. Are you aware many have argued that "Hashem' is amoral.
Side point 2) BTW - if you study ANE literature you will find that at least some pagan gods desired humans to behave morally.
Side Point 3) "Just because something is allegorical does not turn it into a meaningless document." Perhaps, but when every 'problem' verse can be be interpreted and reinterpreted at will that does turn the Torah into a meaningless document.
@Alter Cocker
ReplyDeleteRelating the Torah to previous pagan rituals and teachings is an important component of understanding Torah. I am not disagreeing with that, and I don't need to read your blog post about it. Nevertheless, whether you say that the Torah is just copying those pagan rituals and customs, or that it's actually serving as an antidote to them is up to the reader. I myself believe the latter, and therefore there is no need to twist myself into a pretzel to defend the Torah. If you want to believe the former, then hooray for you. This would be a good place for you to respond with the reasons why you believe it's the former, in your own words, without posting a link.
In regards to the amorality of pagan gods, I did not use the word "majority", and I am not steeped in pagan culture to know all it's ins and outs to give you a wide breadth of commentary on it. If you can point me to a form of paganism whose gods were moral, and was centered around a legal system that aimed at bringing mankind to moral heights, then I would be interested in hearing about it. If you are able to do the same of a monotheistic religion before Judaism I would be interested in reading that too.
Who are the many that have argued that Hashem is amoral, and what are their primary comments.
"when every 'problem' verse can be be interpreted and reinterpreted at will that does turn the Torah into a meaningless document."
Can you give me some examples of what you consider a "problem" verse so I can get a better understanding of what you mean by that.
Notice how my comments here were an attempt to respond to your points in an orderly fashion. I did not post links. Please do the same. Also, I will not respond to comments that you insert in a discussion that I am having with someone else on another thread (one atheist at a time please!). It completely throws of the flow, especially when you post 2-3 separate comments at once. So if we're gonna have a discussion, let's continue it here.
Sorry I am not going to cut and paste from my blog spot, or retype. It is not just pagan rituals, but also the stories and myths. Read the following posts to understand why at times I think the 'former" see my posts Cut Off, Statute Forever, and all my posts http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014/03/explanations-of-pagan-customs-in_18.html and there other posts that indicate the former.
DeleteFOR the Morals related to gods see this post http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014/05/proof-of-god-from-morality-part-one.html
Regarding Morals in Torah - for a small selection see https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2018/04/kuzari-argument-part-19-plus-some_7.html BUT there is so much more to be written about it. That is something I need to do - for example a reasonable case can be made for the Torah sanctioning genocide or ethnic cleansing. Torah sanctions punishment of people for the sins of others. Dawkins comment can also be supported somewhat - but it would require alot of time to gather the chapter and verse. His comment being “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
@N8light - the Mabul - Noach story that is a problem -see http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-challenge-of-noah-part-one_3.html . How about Breshis 1, you know, the one Rav Slifkin wrote The Challenge of Creation. (BTW I wrote a review of that book at my blog which includes a critique of his 'explanations' of the problems, and then some.)
DeleteHere are some more problems: Torah Discrimination or Unfair Laws, Pagan Parallels. Dates below refer to my posts. (easy access found here:http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2017/05/index-of-posts-by-category_29.html)
The Bible, the Brother, and the Widow 2/4/14
Suspected Adultery and the Bible Remedy 1/18/14
The Bible, The Priests, The Female and the Disabled 2/17/14
Oral Law Part Two - Treatment of Women - Sexist laws 9/11/2016
I DO NOT EXPECT YOU TO RESPOND ANY OF THE LINKS I POST. It is FYI, why am skeptical of Orthodox Judaism and supernatural. Nor do I have the time to respond to everyone of your comments and questions. I have supplied answers and refutes to most if your questions, comments at my links. I suspect there is no argument I could make, nor any evidence that I could present, that would dislodge your religion from your mind.
Interestingly, the Torah and Tanakh never describes an eclipse with the possible exception of Joshua 10 ( the word with Joshua for the sun is “dom” which means became silent which means stops shining which implies an eclipse). In any case, the philosopher Philo (whom lived in the first century of the Common Era), explained eclipses as the “natural consequence” of rules governing the sun and moon.
DeleteI can see that you can't abide by a simple rule of not posting links. I am beginning to wonder if you're not all there...
ReplyDeleteFor fun, I went on the first link. I'm sorry dude but there is no linearity in your writing. I feel like I'm reading random footnotes of a fanatic on different points and am getting nowhere. They simply make no sense to me and probably not for anyone who goes on your blog.
I am happy to have a normal organized dialogue here on this thread, but if you aren't then that's too bad. Please try to respond without links and just try to have a normal dialogue. Can you do that?
I wish I had more time to polish my writing and blog posts. I appreciate you taking the time to visit the link and feedback - which one was it ?
DeleteSome of my posts are probably better written than others so please do not give up on them. Some may require more than one reading to get the logic and reasoning. Even if a blog post overall make no sense to you, there may be some nuggets that could be helpful. Like I have said before, I received and do not receive anything for my blog, nor do I intend to. Shalom
DeleteI will keep in mind for the nuggets. All the best
Delete@AJ I would really appreciate it if you could inform me of the link or name of the post that did not make sense to you ?
DeleteOOPS - a typo in my 12/19/2018 comment - should be Like I have said before, I never received and do not receive anything for my blog, nor do I intend to. A reminder - @AJ I would really appreciate it if you could inform me of the link or name of the post that did not make sense to you ? Thank You
Delete@N8light It has been several days now. I would greatly appreciate it if you can inform me about the post you read that did not make sense to you ? I am not trying to draw you into a debate on this, but am sincerely seeking your assistance. Thank You.
DeleteToo many to enumerate.
DeleteBy “not making sense” I’m not talking about your logic, but rather your writing style. Your posts are not reader friendly and instead of essays or articles, I feel like I am reading scattered notes. I suggest you redo the format of each post to allow visitors of your blog to understand
@N8light - Thanks for clarification.
DeleteYou wrote "For fun, I went on the first link..." All I want to know is what the link was or the name of the post.
I am going to repeat that again because maybe you have overlooked that my previous requests. So please tell me the l"first ink" you visited. Thank You
Hi Alter Cocker. You're free to read my post about the entire "rationalist" Judaism movement, and feel free to share it with the other Jews who you know. Thanks.
Deletehttps://ultraorthodoxatheism.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-so-called-rationalist-jews.html
@ApikoresJew just read it. Anyway, did you notice that N8light never got back telling me the name of the post I wrote that did not make sense to him ? This after many polite requests. I wonder why. Is it possible for you to create an index of posts - something like I did. I found it very helpful to find stuff, organize thoughts etc: BTW - Rav Slifkin's approach is not new, It is a way for religious to appear to be sophisticated/non superstitious /scientific/philosophers. I think the whole apologetic enterprise is deceptive.
Delete@Alter cocker
DeleteIt's not too hard to look through the thread and find the first link. It took me 5 seconds to go to the top of this thread and find it:
http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2018/03/psalms-ancient-near-east-texts-prayer_21.html and
The reason I didn't answer you is because I anticipated, and am anticipating, you to now ask me which part of that post didn't make sense.
I am not willing to do that, sorry. If someone came up to me to have a dialogue but only in french, I would attempt to do it. My french is actually pretty good, I'm from Montreal, but I'm not fully fluent and it there would be many moments of struggle. But what I would not do is write a compendium of articles for them in french, because the language would be too broken and the points would not come across as clear. And I would not expect them to go ahead and tell me where all the unclear points are. That would be nonsense.
On my own searching, I cam across a really good article about Torah from Sinai on the atheodox blog spot (AJ that's a great article for you to read. Great content and great quality).
Alter cocker, in that thread you said about yourself: "My writing is sometimes cryptic. There are deeper levels to it and sometimes I need to be brief".
That was over 4 years ago, yet your blogs are still "cryptic" and "brief". When you say above "Some may require more than one reading to get the logic and reasoning" that is not because your grammar and theological expressions are so eloquent and so rich in quality that I need to break my head over them to decipher the incredible depth of knowledge laden within them. It's because they are poorly written and are all broken up. I'm sorry to break it to you, but I don't know how else to make my point clear.
If you truly care about "seeking assistance" then I'd give you two tips:
(1) When you comment on a blog, stop attaching your links! (which you failed time and time again). Not only because they are no good, but rather because it will provide you an opportunity for a fresh start to express your views in a cogent manner. Take your time before you write it down if that's what you need.
(2) Don't post 4-5 comments in a row. Organize your thoughts and present them in one post that is not too lengthy. If you need to start by writing a lot all at once, then go ahead and do it. But then read it over a few times to edit it, to delete and correct certain statements, and send out a well written finalized draft. I do that with every comment I submit here and in other blogs.
Hatzlacha!
@N8Light - thanks for finally getting back to me about the link that does not make sense to you, perhaps even after you read it a couple of times. I am willing to clarify it for you. (BTW - many people have told me I write very well, that my blog is brilliant, logical and and very informative. I am not bragging, just letting you know of some of the positive feedback. BUT, I do agree with you some of my blog posts could be better written. I hope the basic information and logic is still accessible.)
DeleteI agree with everything that the author wrote, with one exception. I am a follower of the rationalist Maimonides. Maimonides wrote that G-d does not become angry because G-d does not have human emotions. I do not think that G-d has emotions. Thus, he does not become angry. When the Bible speaks about G-d becoming angry it does so because people needed to believe that G-d would punish them if they did not act properly.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to the sages making errors or superstitiously linking an eclipse to the divine, Maimonides had this to say about the sages and science:
"Do not ask of me to show that everything they have said regarding astronomical matters conforms to the way things really are. For at that time, mathematics was imperfect." (Guide, 3:14)
According to the Rambam, the talmudic rabbis were not experts in science, working only with the primitive science of their day, and as a result, were frequently wrong. Thus, it is no surprise that they were in error in matters of science. But you would be deeply mistaken to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete