These posts are going to be some of the toughest, most impossible-to-answer questions I've ever encountered in Judaism, many of them from when I was still religious. No rabbi, no source, and nobody could ever give a satisfying answer (one that is not contradictory in some way). This is even if you accept the premise that Hashem exists and that the Torah is accurate.
So most everyone knows the story of Joseph. If you don't: There was a kid named Joseph, his dad Jacob loved him more than his other sons, the other sons got jealous, decided to kill Joseph. This is it in a nutshell.
However, Jews run into a problem. They believe that the 12 tribes, or brothers (Reuven, Shimon, etc.) were all huge tzadikim, righteous people. Now, the backstory is that the brothers sat down and paskened that Joseph was worthy of the death penalty according to Jewish halacha.
So, assuming that's true, here's the problem. Once they killed (or thought they killed) Joseph, they then took his coat, murdered a goat, dipped it in the blood, and gave it to Jacob, their father. And they lied to him and basically told him that they found it, and that a wild animal must have killed his son - instead of admitting that they had actually killed him.
But Jacob presumably was the biggest tzadik of all. So if the brothers had gotten the halacha right, there was no need to hide! Why wouldn't they just say, "We looked at the rules that god said, GOD said to kill Joseph, so we did!" No argument would be had from Jacob, because it's god's will (apparently). And Jacob would have been satisfied with that answer (I'm not going to examine the morality of that now). Instead, Jacob suffered for years because of the pain of (what he believed was) Joseph's death.
Furthermore, LYING is a huge sin. So if the brothers were really big tzadikkim, why would they lie to their father?
At this point, you have to pick one of two options:
1) The brothers were ABSOLUTELY not tzadikim - in fact, they were murdering psychopaths who didn't even follow the halacha correctly, or
2) They did follow the halacha, but were absolutely LIARS who wouldn't even tell their father that they were simply following Hashem's orders and allowed their father to suffer under their lie
So what were they, according to Judaism? Psychopathic murderers who didn't keep the halacha, or psychopathic liars who did?
This contradiction could never be solved, even when I was religious. Now, I feel so happy I don't have to smash my brains for an answer, because the actual answer is that I have no reason to assume this fairytale is true. So all "contradictions" become meaningless.
Baruch the no-Hashem!
So most everyone knows the story of Joseph. If you don't: There was a kid named Joseph, his dad Jacob loved him more than his other sons, the other sons got jealous, decided to kill Joseph. This is it in a nutshell.
However, Jews run into a problem. They believe that the 12 tribes, or brothers (Reuven, Shimon, etc.) were all huge tzadikim, righteous people. Now, the backstory is that the brothers sat down and paskened that Joseph was worthy of the death penalty according to Jewish halacha.
So, assuming that's true, here's the problem. Once they killed (or thought they killed) Joseph, they then took his coat, murdered a goat, dipped it in the blood, and gave it to Jacob, their father. And they lied to him and basically told him that they found it, and that a wild animal must have killed his son - instead of admitting that they had actually killed him.
But Jacob presumably was the biggest tzadik of all. So if the brothers had gotten the halacha right, there was no need to hide! Why wouldn't they just say, "We looked at the rules that god said, GOD said to kill Joseph, so we did!" No argument would be had from Jacob, because it's god's will (apparently). And Jacob would have been satisfied with that answer (I'm not going to examine the morality of that now). Instead, Jacob suffered for years because of the pain of (what he believed was) Joseph's death.
Furthermore, LYING is a huge sin. So if the brothers were really big tzadikkim, why would they lie to their father?
Joseph's bros. They don't seem like people you'd want to meet on a dark street at night.
At this point, you have to pick one of two options:
1) The brothers were ABSOLUTELY not tzadikim - in fact, they were murdering psychopaths who didn't even follow the halacha correctly, or
2) They did follow the halacha, but were absolutely LIARS who wouldn't even tell their father that they were simply following Hashem's orders and allowed their father to suffer under their lie
So what were they, according to Judaism? Psychopathic murderers who didn't keep the halacha, or psychopathic liars who did?
This contradiction could never be solved, even when I was religious. Now, I feel so happy I don't have to smash my brains for an answer, because the actual answer is that I have no reason to assume this fairytale is true. So all "contradictions" become meaningless.
Baruch the no-Hashem!
Hi,
ReplyDeleteThanks for this awesome post.
I have long recognized the issues with taking the latter approach (that the avot or anyone in that era kept the Torah), and therefore for Jews that strive to understand the truth, the sensible and rational approach lies in the former solution you proposed (they were not tzadikim).
There are issues, however, with your projections on that approach. You are the one inserting the term "psychopaths" unnecessarily, disparaging them from the get-go. Furthermore, they were not murderers either since they did not actually murder him. The intentions indeed were there, but since when do we incriminate people based on their intentions? (see the movie Minority Report as an entertaining way to start exploring this issue). So were they tzaddikim? Likely not. Were they murderers? No. Were they psychopaths? Likely not. Were they liars? Yes. Is lying a "huge sin" like the way you defined it? No, at least when you compare it to things like murder and rape.
Then you have to take into account the fact that there were two brothers there (namely, Yehudah and Reuven) who did not wish to murder Yosef at all and were trying to save his life. You also have to take into account that it doesn't even say how many were even involved in the conspiracy to kill him. Maybe it was only two of them (indeed, I believe chazal try to narrow it down to Shimon and Levi). So in the end of the day, it could have only been two of the brothers, not the 12 tribes, who had murderous intentions, but were not actual murderers and were not "psychopaths".
By the way, did they even sell him into slavery? The pshat of the verses suggest they in fact did not. That was the conclusion I came to a few years ago, and baruch sh'kavanti the Rashbam (the classic pashtan) takes this approach.
I get it that you grew up in a community and likely a household that fed you the midrashim about the avos keeping the Torah and then the absurd necessity to somehow justify everything in the Torah around this belief. There is grave danger in taking midrashim and mamarei chazal literally, and it's very tangible in your expressions that you got the raw end of the deal. I call it "karaitic Torah sh'baal peh".
The reason why chazal said a lot of these teachings, in my humble opinion, was based on the historical backdrop of where they found themselves with the religion of christianity taking shape and leading the masses astray. Chazal needed to make these statements to avoid losing even more Jews and they placed an emphasis on the righteousness of the avot and how the Torah was something that existed long ago. They truly understood the dictum of "eit la'asot l'Hashem heferu Toratecha" and chazal were tremendous scholars and righteous individuals who were able to "roeh et ha'nolad". Now, thousands of years later, when Jews are starting to ask questions, these midrashim and mamarei chazal should be recognized for what they are. Unfortunately, most of the chareidi gedolim and communities are unable to consider this, and we wind up with many Jews leaving the fold because their questions are not being answered. Are you one of those Jews? I don't see why the answer needs to be "yes" when all you may need is a frameshift of how to learn Torah and how to understand Jewish history. Instead of swiftly coming to the conclusion that "the contradictions could never be solved" you simply need to look elsewhere than the rabbis you were previously surrounded with. Based on your analysis and questions, you seem smart enough to do that.
Looking forward to your response
Hatzlacha!
Glad you enjoyed the post.
DeleteThe fact that you seem to take umbrage with (what you call) my "interpretations" is ultimately not my fault, but it would be god's. If he exists, why would he write down the truth in unclear snippets that are open to "interpretation" of pshat/drush and the fallible humans of specific time periods to radically alter the true meaning? Furthermore, if everything is open to interpretation, how do you know the entire existence of Hashem, Mount Sinai, etc. is not all "metaphorical" as well? What method are you using to determine when something in the Torah is literal vs. metaphorical?
It seems a bit condescending to assume that you know the "right" interpretation of Judaism and I was taught "wrong", when in fact I'm simply humoring Jews when I write this article. I have no reason to assume that the Torah is true, historically accurate, etc. And guess what? Even if the brothers were true tzaddikim ... none of that would give an ounce of credence to the question of whether Hashem exists or not.
And that's all I care about. Because the entire Torah is based on the premise of a god existing. If that disappears, arguing over old fairytales becomes pointless.
And so, I pose the same question to you, and the other "rationalist" Jews ... why exactly do you believe a god exists in the first place?
"why exactly do you believe a god exists in the first place? " Most Jews who believe in G-d because of early childhood socialization and cultural transmission which is the same reason most Muslims etc: believe in their religion. "Proofs" are used by religions to provide support after the fact. BTW I debunk many proofs at http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014/04/some-reasons-to-reject-orthodox-judaism_2.html
Delete@ApikoresJews
ReplyDelete[I had to break up my response in two pieces because it was too long! So so sorry!]
"not my fault, but it would be god's. If he exists, why would he write down the truth in unclear snippets"
I myself don't fully agree with the notion that God Himself wrote the entire Torah. Besides the luchot, is there anywhere else in Tanach that dictates He wrote it down? Indeed, this is an area I grapple with, and despite these struggles I don't rush to conclusions that it's all a sham. I am okay with living with questions while I strive to make sense of it all.
Whether one wants to believe God wrote it down or mere mortals, one thing I know with conviction is that the manner in which it is formulated keeps me interested. Beyond the messages of morality it impresses upon me, I often look at it like a puzzle that begs to be deciphered. If the Tanach was written as a regular novel, I wouldn't keep running back to the shelf to read it and review it again. The hidden keys of intertextuality and parallel themes is something that simply does not exist in other religious works. So whoever wrote it, or inspired it to be written, the "unclear snippets" is what keeps it being heavily studied and analyzed to this day.
"What method are you using to determine when something in the Torah is literal vs. metaphorical?"
Awesome question. I look at the big picture. I recognize the Torah as a guidebook that aims to set man on a moral path. When it comes to the narrative components of Tanach, too many meforshim exist that have explained things allegorically that it doesn't bother me to conclude in some instances that the episode was indeed allegorical. I look at the messages that are laden within the stories, I look at the overall symbolism behind what's being recorded, and I focus on that as the primary. Sure, I can always ask "did this really happen", and I often do, but the more pertinent question I aim to ask is "whether this is allegorical or literal, what is the message I am meant to take from this".
It's a dangerous game to play. I do understand that. If we focus too much on the message, then who cares about keeping the law? Who cares about making it dominate my life style? But without tangible actions that are geared towards experiencing and living those inner messages in an actualized manner, it would only take a few generations before those messages would be long forgotten and disregarded. I use christianity and reform judaism as testaments to that grave mistake, and I often look to those factions as warning signs that keep me away from too much of a heretical path.
I myself do believe in the existence of God, so my lechatchilah approach to when I learn Tanach is that it's literal. But when it comes to those stories that are so radically non-scientific and non-natural, I am okay with relying on the meforshim, yes the ones from hundreds of years ago, that describe them as allegorical. Unfortunately, we are surrounded by a Jewish education system that zeroes in on the ashkenazic meforshim who took everything literally, and they had good reason to do so in their time period due to christian influence. The problem, in my mind, with the more right-wing and chareidi approach nowadays is not only that it's stuck in the past, but that it fails to recognize exactly what the greatness of the tannaim and amoraim was really about. I'd love to continue this topic as we go along, but my comment here is getting quite long.
[part 2]
ReplyDelete"condescending to assume that you know the "right" interpretation of Judaism and I was taught "wrong""
I apologize if that was the vibe I was giving off. I don't recall using the terms "right" or "wrong", but if that's what was implied, then my bad. Rather, what I meant was that it sounds as if you were taught a type of Judaism that took the drash and made it into the pshat. And when it came time for you to start asking questions, which you darn well should, absurd and nonsensical answers were thrown at you to defend the drash, when they could have just said "well, the drash is allegorical and they are meant to convey a profound message that gives another layer to the pshat". Whether the form of Torah adherence is "right" or "wrong" shouldn't be the question. It's whether it's the "right" or "wrong" approach for you. If your questions can't be answered, then instead of leaving Torah behind and claiming it to be falsified, perhaps you just need to attach yourself to the more intelligent forms of Judaism out there. I totally get where you're coming from. I just don't see any evidence in your writings that you've taken this approach prior to making your ultimate conclusion.
Can I prove that God exists? Can anyone? I think that no matter how shallow or deep you go down that rabbit hole, the answer is no. You have the choice to live in a God-filled or Godless world. You have the choice to recognize all the natural phenomena and beauty that this world has to offer as mere chance and coincidence. No one's taking that away from you. That's what makes you human, that's what makes you who you are as an individual. I myself can choose to stop everything I'm doing right now and make the decision to not hear another word of it until I have proof that God exists. Anyone can make that decision. Why don't I do that? I have a hard time attributing too many things in the world as mere happenstance. Not psychologically, but rationally. I myself find it too difficult to see the Jew's existence after thousands of years of pain and persecution as something merely based on our wit. Or to convince myself that our people returning to our land after >2000 years has nothing to do with the prophecies written long ago. I can always go down the route of "why do bad things happen", but I don't see why I can't simply ask "why do good things happen". I recognize that all the pagan forms of worship prior to Judaism, along with the similarities to Judaism, all contain a unifying theme of their gods being amoral, while Judaism was the first to introduce the notion of a moral God Who expects us to be moral. These are all parts of Torah and Judaism that point to the existence of a God.
I also have learned the Torah in a manner that my questions have been answered in a satisfactory manner. For those who have questions and are surrounded by people who simply can't provide the answers, then I can understand why you took the route you did. There are thousands of Jews out there who have the same questions as you, the only difference is that most of them were raised in an environment that not only supported those questions, but promoted them. It is indeed possible to be Torah observant, loyal to science, a rational thinker, a normal person, and one who exists in God all at the same time. I hope you've come across some of these types of Jews along your journey. If you haven't, then you don't need to look far to find them and learn from them.
Looking forward! I learn more from these exchanges than I do with rabbis. So keep em coming! I'm enjoying it so far.
Thank you for honestly admitting that you can't prove a god exists. Once you've done that, I'm unsure of why you'd want to proceed further, as that's the whole point of my argument.
Delete(That's why, although I do appreciate you sharing your thoughts about religion, practices, your Jewish lifestyle, etc. I'm going to ignore those, because they're irrelevant to what's actually true.)
I'm interested in whether I can demonstrate whether what I'm believing is rationally justified. Are you? If you can't prove a god exists, why do you believe one does? You say you believe in a god because you have a "hard time" viewing the world based purely on naturalism - in particular, you seem to reference probabilities of Jewish survival over centuries. But firstly, your inability to comprehend something wouldn't mean it's not true. And to rely on that would be a simple argument from ignorance fallacy. Secondly, I don't see the problems you seem to face - we can discuss them, if you'd like. But suffice it to say, how did you determine the probabilities of Jews surviving? And furthermore, even if you COULD calculate it ... how does the existence of a god make it more probable? Wouldn't you need to explain the existence of the god itself, how "it" got there? What's the probability of a god existing? You don't solve problems of probability by attributing it upwards to a god - you only create more.
Lastly: I don't have the "choice" to live in a "god-filled" world, whatever that means. My mind is forced to believe based on the requisite evidence. Since there's no evidence for a god, even if I "wanted" to believe, I couldn't. So when you say it's possible to be Torah-observant, rational, and one who "exists in god" all the time, I really must ask you to clarify what you mean, because it makes no sense. I can't simultaneously be rational, and at the same time, assume that a deity exists. Either Hashem exists, or not. There is no third option here.
Believing in a god because it improves your life, makes you feel good, etc. might all be good things, but they count NOTHING towards whether the belief is ACTUALLY true.
That's all I really care about, and that's what I pose to you: Do you actually care whether your belief is true or not? That's the point I'd like to focus on.
(I'm happy to hear you enjoy these posts and learn more from them than you do with rabbis, lol! Trust me, I know what you mean. Not all, but many rabbis are woefully ignorant of philosophy, science, or rationality.)
"Once you've done that, I'm unsure of why you'd want to proceed further"
ReplyDeleteRecall that the main focus of my first comment was in relation to your analysis of the Yosef story, which demonstrated that your entire post was based on an incomplete comprehension of pshat vs. drash. Therefore, whether you believe in God or not, there is much to discuss when it comes to reading Tanach and resolving your questions.
"If you can't prove a god exists, why do you believe one does?"
I turn the question on you: If you can't prove He doesn't exist, why do you believe He doesn't?
The knee-jerk response to that is often by way of analogy: I cannot convince you that a 3-eyed frog named Gregory from Mongolia is the one and only god and that you must obey him because "if you can't prove he doesn't exist, then why not obey him?" But the reason that analogy falls short of getting anywhere is because you are hearing about it from one person, namely me, that weird guy you're blogging with that you don't really know yet. It's an entirely different story when the God we are speaking of was one Who revealed himself to the multitudes.
I'm sure you've already heard this argument, which differentiates Judaism from the other religions in that we experienced a national revelation of God while other faiths originate from the eye witness account or testimony of a sole individual. A classic teaching of Judaism 101. I myself have not been impressed with rebuttals given by atheists or christians to that point, so please do share your thoughts on why it isn't enough of a rational approach to the divine nature of the Torah.
But the more pertinent point I'd like to bring up in relation to this matter is that if someone is really invested in discovering whether or not a God exists, I mean really sincere about it and not just someone with a bone to pick, then they would do the proper investigation to educate themselves about what this God is about and where He comes from. For christians it would require them to take an honest look at the "new" testament (don't get me started on that one; I've debated with christians too many times and still haven't heard anything satisfactory or mildly intelligent in their approach to how the "new" testament could be a fulfillment of the "old"). For muslims, it would mean seeking out the Quran and delving in its texts (one of my next projects). For Jews, which I assume you and I belong to, it would mean learning Tanach... but properly. If someone grows up in an environment that doesn't cultivate an honest study of Tanach with all the questions that come with it, the solution is not to throw in the towel. Instead of concluding that "there is no God", the more mature and intelligence-seeking approach is that "the God being described to me doesn't make sense".
So when it comes to my belief in God, the main source for me is from my study of Tanach, gemara, and later teachings. The other points I brought up to you (Jewish survival, return to the land, etc.) are the points I reflect upon that exist outside the prism of studying Torah and are more from a general observation of world events and history. While some believe in God because "it makes you feel good", I don't recall I brought up that point.
"My mind is forced to believe based on the requisite evidence. Since there's no evidence for a god, even if I "wanted" to believe, I couldn't. "
If there's no evidence for either side then how could your mind be forced to believe one side over the other? Furthermore, belief and knowledge are not only two separate points, they are diametrically opposed to one another.
Looking forward!
@N8Light I have given considerable thought to the Kuzari argument and think it is full of holes. I suggest at least skimming all of my Kuzari posts. Also, the religious are making a claim - the burden of proof falls more greatly on them. For example, who do you think has the greater burden of proof on the question of the resurrection of Jesus ? I will not accept it unless somebody can provide extraordinary evidence for his resurrection. For links see http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2017/05/proof-of-god-burden_27.html
Delete@Alter Cocker Jewish Atheist
DeleteI do not censor ANY comments, but I deleted your comment which was full of links. Please don't spam the chat with links, as it gets messy really quickly. Thank you.
@N8LIGHT
DeleteYou seem to be unfamiliar with the burden of proof. You CAN'T turn the question back on me, because the person making the claim (that a god exists) has the burden of proof (the need to provide evidence for that claim). So of course I can't DISPROVE a god existing, but I don't have to. I also don't have to "disprove" the existence of unicorns in order to conclude that they don't exist. I am UNCONVINCED that a god exists, and since you are convinced, I repeat: WHY are you convinced? What is the main reason that led you to the conclusion that there is a god?
Furthermore, if your reason is the "mass-revelation" narrative, AKA "Kellerman's Argument," or more originally, Kuzari's, then I am not impressed at all, for three reasons: firstly, Judaism actually DID start with a single person (Adam) who passed that information about a god to Abraham, who eventually passed it down to Moses, who went up the mountain "by himself" and supposedly talked to a god, which he then came down and "revealed" to the people? That is not mass-revelation - that is singular people. Why do we trust that Adam and Chavah existed, and truly met a god?
Secondly, many other religions make claims about mass-revelations or miracles, such as Jesus doing miracles in front of 500 people and feeding them. That is absolutely a mass-revelation, but I'm going to assume you don't find that claim compelling. Why not? Why don't you believe that claim?
And thirdly, even if you were right, and Judaism was indeed the only religion with a mass-revelation claim ... the answer is, "I don't know how this claim got started." Finished! I don't need to DISPROVE it, rather, the religious need to prove it. This simple point is what Kellerman (and Rabbi David Gottlieb) completely miss. They don't understand the burden of proof, either.
Knowledge and belief are not opposite at all. I don't know how you're defining those terms, but knowledge is a SUBSET of belief. So of course I believe that no god exists, but I have knowledge in the sense that my belief is justified. I can provide evidence that shows that the claims of the supernatural, god, etc. have not yet met their burden of proof. Therefore, it can't be rational to believe in them yet - even if they WERE true. Because they haven't been demonstrated. So my mind goes for what is PROBABLE and LIKELY, and it is extremely likely that no god exists, and extremely unlikely that a god exists.
Lastly, you state that your main source for belief in a god is studying Tanach, among other texts. I only have one life on earth, and many people tell me competing claims, such as, "Study the Quran and you'll know god exists," "Study the Tanach," etc. I have limited time. I can't study everything. All I can study is the real world, because if there IS a god, he's got to be there, not in a book.
But when we look at the real world, we don't see a world that matches up with the model of a god existing. If there's a real, loving god, why is there cancer? Earthquakes? Viruses? There's a million phenomenon that directly contradict the concept of an all-loving, all-powerful god existing, and that's the god of Classical Judaism. Now, if you want to make an argument about a weak god, or a malevolent god, please do. But there's no way you can claim that Hashem (all-loving, etc.) exists. It's logically impossible.
(Can I ask you something, just for my own curiosity: if you're so willing to learn even the Koran, or other religious texts, do you ever doubt that you're believing in the "right" god? How do you know you're not wrong and Krishna is really the right god, or Brahma? You know that Hinduism came way before Judaism existed, right?)
I need to provide my links to support my arguments. But if you decide I can not post links so be it and I will not be able to continue posting here. Spamming as I understand it relates to sales, ads, commercial enterprises etc: and that is nothing at all like my blog posts. Mine have always been commercial free and I obtain absolutely nothing from my blog.
Delete@Alter Cocker Jewish Atheist
DeletePerhaps I should be clearer. I don't mind if you post links, but at least with some comment involved. This gives it context for other people to understand if they want to click it, instead of just a lone link.
On a side note, I like your name, and I'm curious if you can tell me a little about your background. I'm sure you've had an interesting journey.
@AJ - I appreciate the clarification. I may post a link to support a comment I actually make. Sometimes I post a link to respond to a comment from another poster - I try to specify to which of their comments I am responding to. There is a small blurb about my background at my blog. In addition, my background consists of Litvak-Yeshivish - ranging from the Lakewood crowd to 'Young Israel' (as it was over 40 years ago) to Rav Slifkin style.
DeleteThe question is a lot deeper than just the claim of mass revelation. My question to you is, if such a claim can be successfully made and maintained, without it having actually happened, how come Mohamed didn’t make the claim, nor Paul on the road to Damascus, nor Siddhartha Gautama meditating under the tree? (Your claim that Jesus performed miracles in front of hundreds of people not withstanding, there are people who perform miracles i.e. magic this day and age as well in front of hundreds of people. I believe the discussion is about the claim of multitudes hearing the word of the divine. Had his supposed reincarnation happened in front of the masses, that would be a different story.)
ReplyDeleteNow, not only did the author/s make the claim successfully, but they also had the chutzpah to write that no one will ever make this claim again! How could they know that? כי שאל נא לימים ראשנים אשר היו לפניך למן היום אשר ברא אלהים אדם על הארץ ולמקצה השמים ועד קצה השמים הנהיה כדבר הגדול הזה או הנשמע כמהו השמע עם קול אלהים מדבר מתוך האש כאשר שמעת אתה ויחי
Why would the author/s insert stumbling blocks that can come back and hurt the faith later? Why take the chance?
And if they did successfully pull off this amazing feat, the natural order of things would dictate for it to happen again and again. There is no lack of religions and cults in this world, so why in this case hasn’t it?
@KikesOnBikes
DeleteYour entire post can be distilled to one argument from ignorance. "I can't explain phenomenon X, therefore, I'm justified to believe this is a god" is not rational. The rational answer is, "I don't know." That's it!
@Kikesonbikes - I I have given considerable thought to the Kuzari argument and think it is full of holes. I suggest at least skimming all of my Kuzari posts. http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/07/kuzari-principle-or-argument-part-i_24.html I will cite just a tiny piece from 2014 "1) Ad Ignorantiam fallacy - meaning an appeal to ignorance. The Kuzari argues we can not fathom how the Sinai story could have evolved, therefore it must be true. This argument is similar to the god of the gaps argument - just because we can not explain XYZ to an individual's satisfaction does not mean XYZ is true. This fallacy is enough to reject the Kuzari." Now you may not be convinced by that counterargument. That is why I suggest you read all my Kuzari posts to understand why I think the Kuzari argument is full of holes.
Delete@ApikoresJew
DeletePeople are put to death in this country with evidence of their wrongdoing being beyond “reasonable doubt”. What I presented to you isn’t a question on supernatural phenomenon occurring, it’s a question on natural phenomena not reoccurring. There are only two possibilities, either the story really happened as written down, or they pulled off an unnatural miracle that no other religion managed to figure out how to do until today. Plus made the claim that no one ever will.
You’re claiming the latter.
How many times will you see the dice roll and land on snake eyes before you say it’s unnatural? And if I tell you that the dice must be loaded you’re gonna tell me I’m giving you an argument from the god of the gaps.
@ KikesOnBikes writes "How many times will you see the dice roll and land on snake eyes before you say it’s unnatural?" This is Rabbi Kelemen's 'BOMB", I address it here. (@AJ his name is Kelemen) https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2018/04/kuzari-argument-part-21-rabbi-kelemen_23.html @KOK - I really think you need to read my posts on the Kuzari argument to understand why at least this skeptic thinks the argument is full of holes.
Delete
Delete@Alter Kocker Jewish Atheist
The logic and soundness of rabbi Kelemen’s argument, is a lot more compelling and logical then your counter claim. Just my opinion.
@KOB - I wonder how you were able to read thru and digest my Kuzari posts so quickly, let alone come to such a fast conclusion. I have written numerous counter claimS (plural) to RK's bomb and his Kuzari argument as well as other versions. At least skim all the Kuzari posts to get a feel for why I think the argument is full of holes. If at the end of the day you think the Kuzari argument stands, you are entitled to your opinion. Shalom
Delete@ApikoresJew
ReplyDeleteI am not unfamiliar with the term "burden of proof". A good orthodox Jewish boy should know that it's part of ancient Jewish literature ("ha'motzi m'chaveiro alav ha'raya"). I just wonder how familiar you are with all the other terms that go along with it, such as "reasonable suspicion", "reasonable to believe", "probable cause", etc. And because a lot of those terms will be subjective since our current discussion is not legal, but rather philosophical/spiritual/whatever you want to call it, it's a moot point.
Furthermore, burden of proof can also be on someone who is making a negative claim, namely that something never happened or, more importantly in our case, that a certain document is falsified. You are the one who opened up a text, which again you seem to have a myopic view of, and made the claim that there is no God.
Although Judaism did "start" with Abraham, the very obligations that shape the entire religion (except brit milah and ownership of Israel) were formed at Sinai in a mass revelation (unless you actually take the midrash/gemara literally that the avot kept the Torah!). If you know Torah, then you will be familiar that it says that God Himself spoke to the people, not just Moses coming down and conveying the message. I think it would be befitting if you started quoting chapter and verse. Show me what you got!
jesus doing a miracle in front of 500 people compared to a mass revelation to the millions is the best you can come up with? And "doing miracles" is not even the topic at hand here. (the reason I don't believe in jesus is based on the extremely loose and poorly justified claims of the church that not only does the "new" testament not contradict the "old", but that it's a fulfillment of it)
Regarding "burden of proof" and the mass revelation. Remember, I was very careful with my words that the mass revelation is a "rational approach". You are stuck on the "proof" too much. Do you mean to tell me that every life decision you make is based solidly on proof? There is not one life decision that you follow based on it being highly rational, but not necessarily proven?
I am defining belief and knowledge in the sense that knowledge is based on cold hard facts, i.e. I know that if i let go of a pen it will fall. Belief, however, is a choice that is made on something you can't know for sure if this is fact. If something is proven to be a fact, you know it, you don't believe it. If you believe against it, then indeed that would be irrational. But if something is not proven, believing for or against it is not irrational.
Saying "I can provide evidence that shows that the claims of the supernatural, god, etc. have not yet met their burden of proof" is a backhanded way of saying there is a "lack of evidence", which is not "evidence", and I've brought up that point above.
@N8Light - there most likely were no millions at a revelation at Sinai. See my Kuzari posts for support. Having questionable figures in a story makes the story suspect.
Delete@N8light The "burden of proof" is not a moot point even in philosophy. You make a claim defend it. Besides I have given reasons to reject the Orthodox Jewish narrative. See my blog.
DeleteN8light wrote “Regarding ‘burden of proof’ and the mass revelation. Remember, I was very careful with my words that the mass revelation is a ‘rational approach’. “
I guess you an I have different standards of what is or is not rational.
N8light wrote “But if something is not proven, believing for or against it is not irrational.”
So agnosticism is not irrational ? We can agree on that. Here are just a few of the reasons I do not believe in supernatural beings: There is no good evidence for them; would not fit into well tested scientific models; they are remnants of ancient ignorant and superstitious peoples thinking;; are non falsifiable; make no testable predictions and ocaams razor. Some ‘definitions’ of G-d and his attributes are logically contradictory and less consistent with what we observe in our Universe. These are bullet points and need to be elaborated on.
Nobody has disproved Jesus’ resurrection so I guess it is not irrational to believe he rose from the dead. Christian apologetics also argue it is more rational to believe in the resurrection of Jesus than to not believe it. That his resurrection is the best explanation of the data.. I doubt many Orthodox Jews would find their arguments convincing and would come up with critiques. One has to examine a religion as an outsider and not from the inside through rosy colored sunglasses or blinders. This is extremely difficult for someone inside the bubble of their religion. I recommend Solomen Shimmel's book the Tenacity of Unreasonable Belief - he provides numerous defense mechanisms that the religious use. Start here - http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014/11/the-tenacity-of-unreasonable-beliefs_29.html
[part 2]
ReplyDelete"I only have one life on earth, and many people tell me competing claims, such as, "Study the Quran..."
You're Jewish. Why would you not start with what you're born into? But I already know the answer to that, at least I have a hunch (I'm a believer!). You were born into a subset of Judaism that does not focus on use of intellect in the manner in which we are attempting to do now (as is evidence from a lot of your statements about Judaism and Torah), so instead of being loyal to your roots and looking at other avenues, you did away with it entirely. But you know what. I've been wrong before, and I'm not afraid to admit it. So please, I'd love to hear your story.
"All I can study is the real world, because if there IS a god, he's got to be there, not in a book"
Again, this seems to be coming from a hashkafa that is so distanced from the world and all the beautiful knowledge it has to share. A brave orthodox Jew recognizes he can learn from both.
"There's a million phenomenon that directly contradict the concept of an all-loving, all-powerful god existing, and that's the god of Classical Judaism"
Where in the Jewish doctrine does it say that God is "all-loving"? I think it would be kedai for you to start using sources to make your claims about Judaism because, again, I have a hunch that your role models just didn't teach you intelligent Judaism, yet you call it "classical Judaism"... Here's your chance! Burden on proof all on you brother!
"do you ever doubt that you're believing in the "right" god"
I'm Jewish, so I start with studying the Jewish literature. I'm a link in the chain of my heritage, so I'm gonna study it before other texts, and so far I have not been unsatisfied. Not only is the statement about Hinduism "predating" Judaism not unanimous, what's your point? Paganism came way before all of it!
While I do appreciate your input and enjoy our banter, I think this boils down to a burden of proof.
DeleteI'm shocked to hear you say you think that god is not all-loving. (And regarding that claim, I cannot actually give you a proof for that, and you're correct, I do have a burden of proof if I claim an all-loving god.) But it's irrelevant, because we're discussing whether a god exists at ALL. Perhaps you should define what you mean by god, because I just realized that maybe we're not even talking about the same definition.
After you do that, it's up to you to provide proof and evidence of your claim. Not "scriptures" or invitations that I should study ancient texts written by goat-herders. Proper, 21st-century, scientific, experimental, reproducible proof.
The reason I don't start learning "what I was born into" is because I'm not convinced that my birth is somehow orchestrated by some intelligence. The circumstances of one's birth is not a pathway to truth. If I was born muslim, according to you, I'd be wasting a large portion of my life on studying completely false teachings, merely because I was "born" muslim. We need a better way to use our time and limited resources, and "my birth" is not a good method.
Anyway, if you truly want to continue this debate, I'd invite you to email me (email in my profile) so we can discuss more personal things. However, I think it comes down to the burden of proof. I see this constant "invitation to learn" as a subtle way of trying to shift this burden. Especially when I've already dedicated years of my life to studying a text that says to murder gays and kill people who light fires on shabbos. So forgive me if I don't share the same admiration of this document as you seem to.
N8LIGHT who writes "If you know Torah, then you will be familiar that it says that God Himself spoke to the people, not just Moses coming down and conveying the message. I think it would be befitting if you started quoting chapter and verse. Show me what you got!" Well I have done exactly this and in some detail. See http://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014/07/kuzari-argument-part-4_13.html
Delete@N8light see ACJA "If there was a revelation at Sinai, the Israelites did not hear much of the Torah. Some say they heard the first two of the 10 commandments, others say the first 10, others say they heard no Torah at all just noise. Except for that, Moshe was the translator/interpreter/messenger between G-d and the people. It was Moshe that gave the Torah, not G-d." https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2018/04/kuzari-argument-part-19-plus-some_7.html
Delete@Alter Cocker
DeleteYour comments are so staggered and full of links that I simply cannot possibly answer everything at once. Why don't you re-answer my comment on the other thread (craziest questions). Try to say things concisely, and please on links. If your comfortable with whatever ideas you've amassed in the past, then state them eloquently in that thread.
@Apikores Jew
DeleteI stated it from the get-go. There is no proof here. If you want to make everything about a burden of proof, then you will need to apply that in every life decision you make. The main purpose of my comments is that it seems pretty clear you have a bone to pick with Judaism, and your main questions stem from a poor education system in regards to Torah, and I feel for you. If I was in your shoes, there's a good chance I'd do the same, but I would have definitely wanted someone to show me that there's more to the ultra-orthodox system you grew up in.
I believe in God not because I can prove him, I've mentioned that. I primarily base it on careful study of Torah, one that allows me to balance it with science and nature, by looking at historical events, and secondarily by personal enjoyment.
I'd like to say something cute like "kol yisrael areivin zeh la'zeh" and that I'm here to bring you back to the right path. That's not my goal. You get to choose what you want, we've all got free choice. What you do is your doing. If you feel you've given Judaism a fair shot, because indeed you are Jewish, then you're the judge. But the one thing I recommend you keep away from is posting your "craziest and best religious questions" on a religion and text that you haven't looked into enough.
If you make a claim about an "all loving God" then, as you mentioned, the burden of proof is on you. It is not my goal to teach you, I am not here to hold your hand. I know my own thoughts and sources on a comment like that, but more importantly I'd like to see if that comment comes from that uneducated system of Judaism you were a victim to. If you can't quote chapter and verse, then that's fine with me. It just isn't wise to include statements into our discussion, statements that you can't demonstrate adequate knowledge in.
Bringing in "Proper, 21st-century, scientific, experimental, reproducible proof" in regard to themes in the Torah is a silly request. If I decide to practice the fiddle or take dance lessons, I have no plans of incorporating experimental proof to decide if I should start with it in the first place.
You said: "If I was born muslim, according to you, I'd be wasting a large portion of my life on studying completely false teachings"
I'd appreciate you not twisting my words. I never said that. Again, it seems as if you're making statements based on this perverted upbringing you've had about the world and other religions. Where does Judaism say that everyone should be Jews or study the Torah? If anything we say the opposite. If you're muslim, then yes go and study what you're born into. If you truly give it a shot and are genuinely interested in God and religion, then ask the right questions and don't stop until you get an answer. If you're christian, go ahead and learn the new testament. But a christian better be damn sure to know his "old" testament in full context before making outrageous claims that it's now obsolete and the "new" testament is a replacement or fulfillment of it.
So indeed, what you're born into is what you should start with. And even if you study it and conclude it's wrong for you, then why on earth would you say it's a "waste of life"? I mean, a good orthodox Jewish boy should know that examining material to get to the truth, even if you come across fallacies on the way, is still a valid search for the truth. This is classic gemara 101.
N8light "Your comments are so staggered and full of links that I simply cannot possibly answer everything at once...." Usually I am providing the links to counter some of your assertions which I put in quotes or summarize. Other links address some specific arguments you seem to be making. You are under no obligation to read or respond to anything I write here or at my blog. If you think I have made any errors of fact here or at my blog I would appreciate sources and corrections. Shalom
Delete@N8light who wrote "Why don't you re-answer my comment on the other thread (craziest questions). " Did'nt I already ? See December 17, 2018 at 12:28 AM. (BTW what was the date of your comment that you would like a response to ? Maybe I missed it.)
Delete@Alter Cocker
DeleteI responded to you there on that thread. Please don't insert points into a discussion I'm having with someone else. One atheist at a time is enough for me. If some of those points come up in the thread I am having with you, then I'd be happy to address them in an orderly fashion
@n8light I am not sure why you want me to refrain from making comments pertinent to the conversation. Trust me, I have greatly limited my interjections. Perhaps AJ or somebody else who stumbles upon the discussion would find it helpful. You do not have to respond to my interludes, just ignore them. AJ I think has offered you the option of a private conversation. Nevertheless, out of courtesy, I will respect your wishes.
Delete[part 2]
ReplyDelete"I see this constant "invitation to learn" as a subtle way of trying to shift this burden. Especially when I've already dedicated years of my life to studying"
No shift here. If you want me to stop making these invitations, then call it for what it is: despite the "dedicated years of your life of studying" you've been fed an understanding of Torah and belief system that doesn't make sense (at least to you) and you simply never studied it properly to make thoughtful remarks about it.
"studying a text that says to murder gays and kill people who light fires on shabbos"
You and I (should) both know that the sanhedrin rarely killed anyone (saying that we actually did and that the gemara is false, is an issue of... burden of proof). Go look at those other religions that throw gay people off buildings or have murdered non-believers by the millions. Indeed, the text of the Torah makes it quite clear that proper natural marital relations and sabbath observance are very serious matters for Jews. But trying to bottle down the entire Tanach into that one line you chose, again, shows you've never had closure with your upbringing and Torah education, and that you focus on the wrong parts. I feel for you.
@N8LIGHT
DeleteSee, here's the problem: your constant assertion that I was "taught wrong" is condescending even if you don't mean it that way. Because what you fail to see is that, in a document where there's no objective way to test interpretations, who actually KNOWS who's right? We can't. I'm willing to admit my interpretations can be wrong. Are you?
Furthermore, I did study. I did learn. I did pray. I did cry. For you to insinuate that I wasn't sincere, or somehow didn't put in enough hours, speaks more about your character than it does mine. You don't know me, at all. Instead of constantly saying how I "didn't learn enough," why not answer the simple question: if there's a god, do you believe he will reveal himself to anyone who sincerely, genuinely wants to know about him? THAT'S what you should be addressing.
It's ironic how I bring down the HALACHA from moshe mi'sinai that gays are to be killed, and your defense is, "But but ... 70 years bais-din." I don't give a shit if they NEVER killed anyone. My question is ... why is it even WRITTEN DOWN? Why is this a halachah in the Torah? The Torah is considered to be an all-wise, all moral document, correct? Why would such a horrific command be in a document that is supposedly the greatest one ever conceived? Don't try to avoid it by saying, "It was never carried out." Why is it in there, at ALL?
I'm quite sorry to sound so condescending. I don't think you were taught wrong, I think you were taught an incomplete judaism. The "unanswerable" questions you have on the Torah demonstrate that. Point final. You were a victim of a form of judaism that separates you from the world, you were given a lifestyle that ultimately came down crashing when you realized that it made no sense at all. I could not imagine what that was like, and I would have likely came to the same conclusions as you have. I don't recall saying you were insincere. If that came out between the lines, my apologies. But you clearly have a bone to pick, and whether your final viewpoint follows that of atheism, that's your choice. That's not something that can be taken away from you. But your current state is that of resentment, not that of peace and contentment, based on the posts on your blog.
DeleteI am definitely willing to say that I'm wrong, it happens all the time. But there's a difference between striking out and never making it to the ballpark in the first place. Jews should be taught that fine line between pshat and drash. Otherwise, it leads to confusion and possible resentment. I myself was not born into the type of judaism you were, but I had my fair share of exposure to it, and it has pushed me to understand the Torah in a rational way and to at least gain knowledge in the multiple avenues that the Torah can be analyzed from, instead of saying it's all a sham. For you to go on someone else's website and comment publicly to request an audience to debate the existence of God is quite brazen and insulting to many, sorry to put it so bluntly. What you do with your life should be a personal choice, not one in which you wish to flaunt it to the masses, especially when it's coming from a place of being misled and not receiving a thorough education in the religion.
I see that the point about homosexuality has surely struck a chord in you. It was perhaps the least important point in my entire comment but you're demonstrating strong emotion toward it. The Torah was given in a very different time period back then, and just because the current times have changed doesn't mean that the Torah should be abrogated. Torah isn't meant to fit inside the western ideals, but we do strive hard to ensure that western ideals do not clash too much with the ideals of the Torah. The reason why I brought in the 70-year thing is to show you that the way the religion is practiced demonstrates how the sages were sensitive to achieve a balance between what's in the Torah and what's out there in the world. There are indeed many harsh statements in the Torah, and the rabbis recognized that. They were sensitive to people's feelings and sought to find a way to both maintain the integrity of God's word while at the same time honouring the respect of humankind. At the same time, just because the Torah has a command in it that you feel uncomfortable with, doesn't mean that it is wrong and you are right. God wanted to make it ostensibly clear that marital relations is sacred, and perversion of that act goes against the grain of the natural order of the world.
Hold everything!
DeleteDid you actually just try to defend the verse in the Torah where it says to murder gays?
Do you think that verse is moral and perfect?
Are you actually saying that you believe that gays should be killed if they have homosexual sex?
I don't think anyone should be killed for any of the sins written in the Torah. Who am I to know what's considered an improper act. I'll leave that decision to a court when it's reestablished and they will also likely say no to that question, as has always been the case.
DeleteIt's quite fascinating that you have chosen to "hold everything" in this discussion based on this one question. I thought this post was about the existence of God. You yourself said that none of the commandments matter if you first can't scientifically "prove" that there is a God or not. You seem to be shifting the discussion here and it says a lot about your "quest for truth"
Yes, it personally bothers me when people quote that abhorrent, vile, and immoral verse about murdering innocent gay people.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, you're correct, though: Everything does hinge on the existence of Hashem, and that's why I have chosen to focus solely on whether a god exists. You admit that you can't prove it. Therefore, what more do we have to talk about?
You are, by definition, believing in something that cannot be demonstrated, and so it cannot, by definition, be "rational." You may feel comfortable, or convinced by reading the Torah., that a god exists. That doesn't mean it's reasonable.
I'm solely interested in whether it is reasonable to conclude that Hashem, or any god, exists based on evidence. Are you interested in whether what you're believing is ACTUALLY true? If you don't have confirmation, I don't know how you could even attempt to show me that I'm the one exhibiting some fallacy of reasoning.
"it personally bothers me when people quote that ..."
ReplyDelete-Well I guess it's good that I wasn't the one who brought it up
"that's why I have chosen to focus solely on whether a god exists"
-For someone who's so focused on God's existence, your posts demonstrate (or shall I say "prove"?) that your thoughts, coming from a strong resentment against your religion and/or upbringing, aim to bash what's written in the Torah sh'bichtav or sh'baal peh
"You are, by definition, believing in something that cannot be demonstrated, and so it cannot, by definition, be "rational."
-Many people make decisions that are not rational, per se. You think it was rational for me to have given up my independence by marrying a wife and having multiple children, of which I have no idea will stay loyal to me in the long run? How do I know she's going to be the right one for me? Can I even prove it? I had a conversation with a colleague of mine last year (he brought it up) who said, without hesitation, that based on property taxes, living expenses, professional overhead, student loans, etc. it simply does not make sense for him to have children, and he was fully convinced that was his final decision because in his mind, it was rational. And that's his choice. In my mind, he will be a lonely guy, and I hope he ends up happy.
I am not convinced, however, that everyone will unanimously say his decision was the "right" decision. So either it's that life decisions aren't always based on rationality or, more probably, your "definition" of irrationality has nothing to do with committing ones self and "believing in something that cannot be demonstrated".
"I don't know how you could even attempt to show me that I'm the one exhibiting some fallacy of reasoning"
-Please point me to where I may have insinuated this. I told you it's your choice to not believe in God, and I never said it was irrational.
I myself believe that God exists in a manner where He offers you a rational approach in either direction. I don't think the Torah negates science because I see much of the "miracles" as natural phenomena, but that happen in too much of an opportune time to be mere coincidence. I therefore don't see God's existence as being opposed to science, and therefore do not see it as irrational. Furthermore, as science is critical to understanding the world, there are certain boundaries it is limited by.
Much like my friend who doesn't want to have kids, gey gezunteheyt. Why should I try to change someone else's mind if that's the conclusion they've come to? In your case it just seems that your decision is not stemming from a yearning desire "to focus solely on whether a god exists" and get to the truth, but to also lash out at a religion that didn't make sense to you, rightfully so, and may have even been slightly oppressive, especially when you started asking questions.
"Are you interested in whether what you're believing is ACTUALLY true?"
-I guess that depends on what you consider to be "truth". R' Shimon Ben Gamliel said the world rests on "judgement (din), truth (emet), and peace (shalom)" [Pirkei Avot 1:18]
Without getting into the textual detail I've developed on this mishna, I always saw this relationship as "truth" being at the epicentre, while "judgement" and "peace" were on either side of it. "Judgement" concerns cold hard facts, science if you will. While "peace" represents being a good person and striving for peaceful relations. "Truth" is a balance between those two goals, and I therefore do consider what I believe in to be truth.
I agree with your friend: he looked at the evidence, and came to the conclusion that it's harmful, or potentially harmful, to have a family given his circumstances. That is rational. Rationality means the ability to demonstrate the truth of something. He "demonstrates" that by showing the expenses. But you cannot demonstrate a god in the same way. So I'm not concerned whether you decided to live an action that may be irrational - I'm simply interested in whether it can be SHOWN to be rational. If you can't show it, then yes, you have, by definition, acted irrationally. And that's okay! But please don't act like you "are" rational in this instance. Just say, "I felt like it." Say, "I FEEL like a god exists" instead of saying, "I am rationally justified in believing a god exists."
ReplyDelete"I myself believe that God exists in a manner where He offers you a rational approach in either direction."
See, you miss the point again. I'm not arguing that, if a god existed, he might offer you approaches in either direction. I am arguing whether there's a god in the first place to offer you approaches!
"I therefore don't see God's existence as being opposed to science, and therefore do not see it as irrational. "
I understand that. But this foundational belief that there is indeed a god, needs to be demonstrated. And you already admitted that you don't, or can't, provide that.
"In your case it just seems that your decision is not stemming from a yearning desire "to focus solely on whether a god exists" and get to the truth, but to also lash out at a religion that didn't make sense to you ..."
I analyze the Torah for two reasons: 1) to show atheists what it actually says in there, and 2) for Jews who are unaware of the horrific, immoral things that are in there. Both of those make for spirited, interesting discussion. But I agree with you: ultimately, I could ignore the whole Torah, unless you wanted to debate just for fun. But the Torah is irrelevant. The real, foundational point is about a god, a deity. And I'm going to keep coming back to this point: You said you can't prove it. After that, I don't see how you could want to keep talking about the Torah. What's the point? Even if I was wrong in all my interpretations and my upbringing, do you think you win the debate if you prove that? You win nothing, because you still can't show a god.
"I guess that depends on what you consider to be "truth"."
In my definition, "truth" is that which comports with reality. So you can't say you're interested in truth unless you care about whether it's actually in reality. And if you care about whether it's in reality, you should be able - in fact, you MUST be able - to DEMONSTRATE it.
I am quite surprised that you can say unabashedly that you agree with my friend, simply because he made a decision based on facts, when he is not seeing things in the long run. The latter half to the that story is that I know someone else who made the same choices and is almost 60 years old now and regrets the fact that he's still a bachelor and has no children, and wishes he didn't make his earlier decision based on rationality alone. But hey, he WAS rational so he can't be blamed, right?
ReplyDelete"I am arguing whether there's a god in the first place to offer you approaches!"
-You mentioned that believing in God, be definition, is irrational, while I was telling you it doesn't have to be. Not quite sure your point there.
"But this foundational belief that there is indeed a god, needs to be demonstrated"
-Says who? The young disenchanted and demoralized atheist on the other side of this conversation, who just wants to lash out on his upbringing?
"I analyze the Torah for two reasons: 1) to show atheists what it actually says in there, and 2) for Jews who are unaware of the horrific, immoral things that are in there."
-And then there's the fact that you don't understand that same Torah that you're "enlightening" the masses (halevai) with.
"You win nothing, because you still can't show a god. "
-Win? All this time, I thought I was speaking to a young guy in his 20's, but it sounds like I'm now talking to a teenager. Win? This about winning? Sorry, but you've truly missed the mark.
I invite you to read my latest article, and please share with your friends on Natan's blog:
Deletehttps://ultraorthodoxatheism.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-so-called-rationalist-jews.html
Hey AJ
DeleteI hope all is well. I've noticed you haven't posted anything since my last comment back in January 2019. I hope you're having a great year. I thought of you recently when I came across https://www.cardozoacademy.org/. I imagine you may have heard of this site already; if so I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts about it.
Thanks for the invitation AJ. Unfortunately I don't feel comfortable sharing the post, not because of its content, but because of its quality. You have a lot of questions, I get it. You may also be trying to figure out what to do with your life. Whatever your situation is, it seems that you started your blog with hopes to either (1) genuinely get answers to questions, (2) lash out on your religion, or (3) expect that the blog will bring you some form of popularity and offer you a sense of purpose.
ReplyDeleteWhatever your goal is, there is one singular point I would tell you: go out and start reading more intelligent shades and articles of Judaism. R Slifkin's site is a start. I think you'd also like www.thetorah.com. Ibn Ezra and Shadal on chumash is also a good starting ground. There is also a really good blog at http://dovbear.blogspot.com but you have to search through his earlier stuff (I feel the more recent ones are not so much on theology).
The reason I'm telling you to do this is not only so that you will get educated, but rather that you should realize the level of material out there and how your material compares to it.
Indeed, there are limits to rationalist Judaism, as there are limits to the other sects of Judaism, and as there are (yes) limits to science and philosophy. Everything has limits, and I think it's excellent for anyone in any field to understand the limits they are confined by. If those limits are too uncomfortable, then that's all cool. Things need to make sense. But no matter what avenue you take and decision you make, there will be a limit somewhere. Some people are conscious of it, while others aren't. But there will always be an overarching question that they can't answer. It's up to them to either live with the question and leave the fold (and likely develop another overarching question in the new fold they belong to), or leave the question and keep doing what they do.
Consider this goal "To address the challenges modern Koran scholarship poses to traditional Muslim faith and observance." ? It seems there is a preconceived bias to defend the faith and not follow the truth trail. Would you recommend such a website to people who want to know the truth about the Koran ? Not me. It seems more of an apologetic website. Same applies to thetorah.com They should not be working with preconceived notions.
DeleteIbn Ezra and Shadal - neither are aware of the modern discoveries in comparative religion, ANE myth; and besides disagree with each other let alone Rambam.
Delete"Indeed, there are limits to rationalist Judaism, as there are limits to the other sects of Judaism, and as there are (yes) limits to science and philosophy. Everything has limits,..." AND THEREFORE DRUM ROLL.... ISLAM, OOPS, OOPS CHRISTIANITY , OOPS JUDAISM, OOPS CHEMOSH OPPS...
Delete"Whatever your goal is, there is one singular point I would tell you: go out and start reading more intelligent shades and articles of Judaism. " I agree 100% - start with my blog or try Kefirahoftheweek blog or a University Library where academic scholars have studied the likely origins of the myths of the Torah, it's rituals, laws and superstitions. Consider: A Hittite version of a Canaanite myth represents El as living in a tent; similarly "Israel's early tradition represents Yahweh manifesting himself in a miskan and ohel" see my post for much much more.
Delete@N8Light - Please consider the possibility that Judaism is just an outgrowth of ANE myth, ritual, and superstition. That the evidence and arguments for any gods are full of holes. That the real reason religions persist is because of early childhood indoctrination, tribalism, culture, politics, economics and emotion.
Delete" Same applies to thetorah.com They should not be working with preconceived notions."
DeleteAfter all the comments I read on this essay, yours referring to the Torah.com is misses the point. Professor Warren Harvey is a true scholar of medieval Jewish thought. I have great respect for him as a true scholar. He may even be an atheist, for all I know. Your presentation of their views is at best highly questionable.
@Turk Hill . "To address the challenges modern Koran scholarship poses to traditional Muslim faith and observance." If a Muslim website claimed that how unbiased do you think they would be ? The thetorah.com website wrote the same thing of their website, except of course I changed Torah to Koran and Jewish to Muslim. I have not checked if they have changed that goal since.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@ACJA, Yes, the Torah.com may have a small, almost non-existent bias since it is a religious website. But their site is largely made up of biblical criticisms, much to the contempt of the average Jewish sites. They tend to be very intellectually honest, and I like that. Besides, it's not like your blog isn't biased towards atheism, and the Torah.com places a lot of emphasis on being intellectually honest.
Delete@Turk Hill here is an exact quote from thetorah.com 'about' page "• To address the challenges modern biblical scholarship poses to traditional Jewish faith and observance." I was refering to this in my initial comments here. Consider '• To address the challenges modern Koran scholarship poses to traditional Muslim faith and observance.' It quite biased and is not how to get at the truth. I went back to their website today and quickly checked and that sentance has been deleted from their website AFAIK ! So maybe they have changed their goals since. But if the bulk of authors have not changed much then I am not sure what their real goals are. BTW I am not sure why their mission satement was changed. Was it legal ? Was it because I voiced my issue ? Was it because they really really changed ?
DeleteConsider this quote from thetorah.com "Vision
DeleteAn observant and knowledgeable Jewish community empowered by an understanding of Torah integrated with scientific approaches and scholarly knowledge." Now consider this at a Muslim website 'Vision
An observant and knowledgeable Muslim community empowered by an understanding of Koran integrated with scientific approaches and scholarly knowledge. ' Do you really think the Muslim website will be an unbiased source ? BTW - thetorah.com quote is from an older version of their website.. Not sure if their vision has changed.
@ACJA, Whether that was their internal intention or not seems irrelevant since the bulk of their writers and scholars come from backgrounds in biblical criticism. Whatever their stance, whether religious or not, their essays are intellectually honest and thought-provoking, in my view.
DeleteI have a question for you. Why don'y you accept comments in your blog? I would be happy to share you my thoughts on some of you essays where comments would be appropriate.
@TH - thanks for reading my blog posts. You have a blog - I am willing to clarify any of the blog posts there, or here if UAA allows it, but I think people who spend a little time reading them slowly and then perhaps read them again they should be able to get the gist even if they may disagree.
DeleteThanks ACJA. I will keep that in mind.
Delete
ReplyDeleteThe solution is simple. The Talmud, for example, states that King David did no wrong. But a careful reading of the Bible will show that David made many sins. Similarly, Joseph’s brothers were always jealous of him and they were not righteous as tradition sometimes suggests. Thus, there is no contradiction at all!