(Let me know if you're having trouble with the new Disqus comments and PLEASE use the Reply button)
Forget Bible criticism, forget philosophy, forget arguments AGAINST Judaism. I might have been approaching all of this completely wrong. I've been focusing on the peripheral issues and missing the big picture. We need to ask "prove it!" Let's begin by talking about the burden of proof (BOP).
Now BOP arguments often become silly and are usually not useful in a scientific or historical discussions. But in the case of religion vs. skepticism we absolutely need to establish who the BOP is on. Our options:
1. There are two sides to the argument and the BOP is on both sides
2. The BOP is on skepticism
3. The BOP is on religion
How do we decide? What is the rule (if any) that determines who the BOP is on? Let's discuss generalities first and then move onto the question at hand.
I'm sure right now some believer is smiling at my naivete. BOP on theism!? Don't I know that religion has been around for much longer than atheism. Stupid
Shilton! Atheism, and Deism are the innovations. When someone says "I'm an atheist" S/He is surely like someone coming out of nowhere and saying
Rav Elyashiv is the
Mashiach! The BOP is on the innovative new atheism of the modern era!
This is faulty thinking and let me explain why. Atheism is indeed, relatively speaking a novel idea, however determining the BOP has nothing to do with comparing the ages of two contending ideas. It also has nothing to do with established norms or accepted ideas. The BOP does not follow chronology and does not care who came up with what first and how long people have been doing various things. To determine the BOP we must take two ideas forget the histories and biases behind each one and ask "Which one is making a positive assertion and which one is not."
The BOP always lies on the unproven positive assertion NOT on the unproven negative assertion. Positive assertions are the ones which must be proven. So take rain for example. The belief in the existence of rain is a positive assertion. You can't just assume it rains. You need to base it on something you need some sort of proof. In short the BOP
initially is always on the person who wants to demonstrate the existence of rain. How do you prove it? Well you explain how many people have seen rain (including yourself), and how it is well documented, and how millions of independent sources from people who never met each other all make mention of it. Just a side point: Once you've proven rain then the BOP is obviously shifted, and it is then that the proof must be borne by the
iconoclast who wishes to bring the reality of rain into question.
We start off knowing absolutely nothing and the BOP lies on everything, however once a proof or a well reasoned argument has been offered the BOP is on those who wish to now change things.
So back to religion. Religion is still stuck in the initial stages of doubt. It has never gotten off the ground. Initially at the beginning of a logical inquiry religion, rain, cars, keyboards, cats, physics, and Coca Cola are all in doubt and the BOP is on s/he who wants to prove them. The problem is religion fell behind in the race. We can reasonably prove the existence of rain, cats, cars, keyboards, physics and Coca Cola.
Obviously it's not so easy (probably impossible) to escape a Cartesian doubt or prove we're not brains in jars but we can
prove that in our world, whether that world be real or imaginary, that Coca Cola exists. But religion? Can you prove religion in the same way you can prove Coca Cola? Hell forget Coke! Can you prove religion in the same way you can prove the Earth is round?
It's not a specific bias against religion it's a requirement on EVERYTHING! Nothing is known 'till proven or demonstrated adequately. That's all skepticism is - requiring every positive assertion in the world - no
exceptions - to prove itself. The Burden of proof is on Coke just a much as religion - the only difference is most things have overcome the challenge and fulfilled their duty of bearing the proof. Religion has for the most part failed and now would desperately like to be granted a special
epistemological immunity just because it's really old and respected. Well no can do - stick to faith.
Skepticism is a negative assertion and says "I'll believe it when I see it" It needs not prove anything because it's not saying anything. It's just saying I don't believe in pink unicorns, religion, fairies, an afterlife,
UFO's, and magic NOT because these things are impossible, but rather just because nobody can give me any reason WHY to believe in these things. When a skeptic makes a positive assertion then indeed s/he needs to cough up some proof or argument but
denying religion in general is not a positive assertion.If a real proof or argument for God in general, and Judaism in particular popped up then the skeptics would have to logically change their position and could no longer "hide" behind the Burden of Proof. Since that has not happened yet (AFAIK) and all Judaism has going for it are a bunch of pseudo-proofs which are opiates for the gullible masses , the skeptics still have the high ground.