Nathan Aviezer wrote a book called In the Beginning: Biblical Creation and Science
Then Mark Perach from talk reason wrote a critique of the book on talk reason.
Now on Hirhurim Aviezer wrote a response to Perach. (Only took him about 12 years...)
Ok now that you're all caught up let me say a few thoughts.
Aviezer's book has a lot of different things in it but one that really get on my nerves is the assertion that there is correspondence between the scientific theory of the Big Bang and the Biblical account of Creation. (i.e. the universe has a beginning in both accounts) This is a silly assertion not because the Big Bang isn't true (which seemed to be Perach's assertion, strangely enough...) even if its proven beyond a doubt its correspondence with the Genesis story is completely irrelevant. Because:
What about all the things in the Torah that do not correspond with science? Like men living for thousands of years? Global floods? Oh yeah what about the world and everything in it being created in six days! I'm sure there are explanations for these things, maybe they're allegorical etc. but it seems weird to boldly claim that the Torah corresponds with science because the first verse - sorry, the first verse and nothing else - corresponds with science.
This is classic sharpshooter fallacy.
Any man could have sat in the ANE and written a book about demons and goblins and wars between Gods. And maybe this man would have written about big dragons with long necks. And then suddenly a bunch of idiots would be claiming that this is an account of dinosaurs! Oh the correspondence with science! How edifying!
Anyone writing a long fanciful account about creation and giants and who knows what else has a chance of saying something true. This does not mean the author knew that he was saying something true.
It's essentially a win win for adherents to these types of books.
If something in the holy book does not correspond with science: then it's an allegory or a moshol or who knows.
If something in the holy book DOES correspond with science: then we win! Our book knew science before science new science. Hurray!
You simply cannot write a holy book that doesn't correspond with science because there's always the allegory technique and every now and then you might stumble upon a bit of science and just make people believe.
Friday, 9 March 2012
Thursday, 1 March 2012
God vs. Religion
Ultimately I think the question of whether God exists is irrelevant to religion.
God = a creator, an infinite being, a first cause, etc. None of these understandings of God say anything about religion.
It is possible that God exist? I have no idea, maybe he does maybe he doesn't. However let's say he exists. Let's say one accepts proofs of a first cause or something to create ex nihilo. What have you gained? Nothing about these proofs tells you that God has an interest in men or in giving a strict law code. None of these proofs tell us that God cares about men and most importantly none of these proofs have anything to do with Judaism. You can firmly believe in God but deny Judaism.
Ultimately the only important proof in Judaism is that God revealed himself at some point. Certain thinkers understood this, notably the Kuzari who doesn't base Judaism on a philosophical proof of God but rather on a "historical proof" of the "Kuzari proof".
So why do kiruv agencies and speakers etc. bother "proving God"? Why is it important to them?
I think this is just evidence of the way many of these proofs are formulated. What I mean is that proofs of God are generally made as post-hoc justifications of one's religious beliefs. People believe something and then try to look back at their rather irrational beliefs and try justifying it.
However since these people firmly believe anyways its not so important that the proof exactly match up with the belief.
As long as rational activity about one aspect of the religion can be demonstrated a believer can reflect upon his/her religion and say "hey this religion isn't irrational it's rather clever and it can be proven".
What's important to the believer is the activity of making rational justification not the actual thing proven. Because ultimately the believer doesn't need the proof. The proof is just a way of showing that religion in general is rational. And once God can be proven rationally we make a la pligi and say that all of religion is rational even if we can't quite show how....
God = a creator, an infinite being, a first cause, etc. None of these understandings of God say anything about religion.
It is possible that God exist? I have no idea, maybe he does maybe he doesn't. However let's say he exists. Let's say one accepts proofs of a first cause or something to create ex nihilo. What have you gained? Nothing about these proofs tells you that God has an interest in men or in giving a strict law code. None of these proofs tell us that God cares about men and most importantly none of these proofs have anything to do with Judaism. You can firmly believe in God but deny Judaism.
Ultimately the only important proof in Judaism is that God revealed himself at some point. Certain thinkers understood this, notably the Kuzari who doesn't base Judaism on a philosophical proof of God but rather on a "historical proof" of the "Kuzari proof".
So why do kiruv agencies and speakers etc. bother "proving God"? Why is it important to them?
I think this is just evidence of the way many of these proofs are formulated. What I mean is that proofs of God are generally made as post-hoc justifications of one's religious beliefs. People believe something and then try to look back at their rather irrational beliefs and try justifying it.
However since these people firmly believe anyways its not so important that the proof exactly match up with the belief.
As long as rational activity about one aspect of the religion can be demonstrated a believer can reflect upon his/her religion and say "hey this religion isn't irrational it's rather clever and it can be proven".
What's important to the believer is the activity of making rational justification not the actual thing proven. Because ultimately the believer doesn't need the proof. The proof is just a way of showing that religion in general is rational. And once God can be proven rationally we make a la pligi and say that all of religion is rational even if we can't quite show how....
Wednesday, 22 February 2012
Extremism
If you don't live in a hole you know that there has been much ado lately about Chareidim in Israel, spitting on little girls in Beit Shemesh, making women going to the back of the bus, burning down un-tznius stores. (I'm a little bit late to this but whatever...)
The chareidi warcry about all this is: "It's not us, it's the extremists!"
I think a lot of people miss this point so i'll elaborate on it. Even if most Chareidim disavow the sikrikim (=Chareidi extremists) - which isn't even necessarily true - this does not address the problem. What people have to realize is that extremists don't exist in a vacuum.
Why do we not find Modern Orthodox people reaching the same levels of extremism? The answer is obvious: Fundamentalism breeds violence. Chareidism (which is obviously not a monolithic thing but we will use the term to characterize Ultra-Orthodox Jews, forgive the stereotype) and its uncompromising ethos allows such behavior to thrive. Although Chareidism may not openly advocate violence like this it prepares the ground for it.
The only difference between sikrikim and more quiet Chareidim is that sikrikim, unlike their more moderate brethren, take Chareidism seriously. If Modernity and Secularism and the outside world truly are existential threats to the Jewish people then why be quiet about it? If everyone is out to make the world tamei (impure) then why sit down and let it happen? Grow some balls and bring a stop to it! This is the attitude of these extremists and it directly follows from a Chareidi philosophy that sees secularism as an existential threat.
So people who blame the atrocities on extremists are failing to realize that extremists come from somewhere and in this case they come from communities that see the outside world as evil and threatening.
The chareidi warcry about all this is: "It's not us, it's the extremists!"
I think a lot of people miss this point so i'll elaborate on it. Even if most Chareidim disavow the sikrikim (=Chareidi extremists) - which isn't even necessarily true - this does not address the problem. What people have to realize is that extremists don't exist in a vacuum.
Why do we not find Modern Orthodox people reaching the same levels of extremism? The answer is obvious: Fundamentalism breeds violence. Chareidism (which is obviously not a monolithic thing but we will use the term to characterize Ultra-Orthodox Jews, forgive the stereotype) and its uncompromising ethos allows such behavior to thrive. Although Chareidism may not openly advocate violence like this it prepares the ground for it.
The only difference between sikrikim and more quiet Chareidim is that sikrikim, unlike their more moderate brethren, take Chareidism seriously. If Modernity and Secularism and the outside world truly are existential threats to the Jewish people then why be quiet about it? If everyone is out to make the world tamei (impure) then why sit down and let it happen? Grow some balls and bring a stop to it! This is the attitude of these extremists and it directly follows from a Chareidi philosophy that sees secularism as an existential threat.
So people who blame the atrocities on extremists are failing to realize that extremists come from somewhere and in this case they come from communities that see the outside world as evil and threatening.
Hello
hey folks! (if anyone still follows this blog)
was wondering if anyone would be interested in me continuing my old series on the Documentary Hypothesis. Maybe I'll just write an Ebook and upload it here?
Or does anyone have anything they'd like me to post about it?
was wondering if anyone would be interested in me continuing my old series on the Documentary Hypothesis. Maybe I'll just write an Ebook and upload it here?
Or does anyone have anything they'd like me to post about it?
Monday, 10 October 2011
You Know You're Reform When...
One of the excuses the OP use to justify their lifestyle is that they find meaning in the actions they do. In other words even though we dont subscribe to the dogma, we find at least some of Judaism's rituals and practices meaningful so we keep them anyways.
But of course this is no longer Orthodoxy and it is not even Conservative Judaism. Both these movements *officially* believe man is OBLIGATED to follow rituals. You do them whether or not you find meaning in them. If you can find meaning in them then great! But if not you still do them because you have to.
The OP mindset I've described is much closer to the philosophy of Reform Judaism. Reform Judaism believes man is not obligated to follow Halacha and that Halacha is entirely man made. However, Reform Judaism sees value in keeping the rituals which furnish us with meaning while dropping the ones that don't.
My mindset and the mindset of many OP'ers especially those who skip the "less meaningful" rituals (e.g. praying every day, washing hands before bread, wearing tzitzit) is really some form of Reform Judaism.
But of course this is no longer Orthodoxy and it is not even Conservative Judaism. Both these movements *officially* believe man is OBLIGATED to follow rituals. You do them whether or not you find meaning in them. If you can find meaning in them then great! But if not you still do them because you have to.
The OP mindset I've described is much closer to the philosophy of Reform Judaism. Reform Judaism believes man is not obligated to follow Halacha and that Halacha is entirely man made. However, Reform Judaism sees value in keeping the rituals which furnish us with meaning while dropping the ones that don't.
My mindset and the mindset of many OP'ers especially those who skip the "less meaningful" rituals (e.g. praying every day, washing hands before bread, wearing tzitzit) is really some form of Reform Judaism.
Wednesday, 21 September 2011
Is Kiruv Education?
On Muqata blog there is a discussion about Christian missionaries in Modi'in. Jameel complains about the response of some of the "uber-liberals" in Modiin. The uber liberal in question wrote:
Is Kiruv just Jewish education? Just teaching people about Judaism?
What rubbish. Kiruv is not just education for two reasons:
1. Kiruv only teaches Judaism as a means to get people to observe Orthodox Judaism. The primary goal of Kiruv movements is not to provide information but to use information to convince people to change their lives.
2. Certain Kiruv organizations provide false information that can hardly be called "education" but rather "manipulative indoctrination".
I doubt any Jew would be complaining about Christians teaching informative classes about Christianity in a university. The reason people don't like Christian missionaries is because they're not just teaching people who Jesus was for the hell of it but because they are actively trying to convince you to worship Jesus. Similarly if Aish HaTorah delivers a class on Gemara, I couldn't care less, however they don't just teach Gemara - but are selective in what they teach and try to use the teaching of Jewish scriptures as part of a larger program of getting you to don a black hat, abandon your parents and become a mindless Orthodox sheep.
Btw. I know from personal experience that there are orthodox Jewish movements who are actively working on bringing secular Jews (back) to a religious lifestyle or trying to convince gentiles married to Jews to consider conversion to Judaism, but that wouldn't be considered missionary activity, right?To which Jameel responds sarcastically:
Because after all, living in the Jewish State, educating people about Judaism should be outlawed (in Modi'in). (Stress Added)
Is Kiruv just Jewish education? Just teaching people about Judaism?
What rubbish. Kiruv is not just education for two reasons:
1. Kiruv only teaches Judaism as a means to get people to observe Orthodox Judaism. The primary goal of Kiruv movements is not to provide information but to use information to convince people to change their lives.
2. Certain Kiruv organizations provide false information that can hardly be called "education" but rather "manipulative indoctrination".
I doubt any Jew would be complaining about Christians teaching informative classes about Christianity in a university. The reason people don't like Christian missionaries is because they're not just teaching people who Jesus was for the hell of it but because they are actively trying to convince you to worship Jesus. Similarly if Aish HaTorah delivers a class on Gemara, I couldn't care less, however they don't just teach Gemara - but are selective in what they teach and try to use the teaching of Jewish scriptures as part of a larger program of getting you to don a black hat, abandon your parents and become a mindless Orthodox sheep.
Sunday, 18 September 2011
The Extremism Paradox
It is interesting that two opposite extremes often agree on the interpretations of things.
Following up on the last post... I basically said that the only difference between "mitzvah-killing" in Judaism and "mitzvah-killing" in Islam, from an Orthodox perspective, is our Torah is right and their Quran is wrong.
My goal was to shatter the illusion that Orthodox Judaism is somehow more humane or moderate than other religions.
Ironically what seems to be an extremist on the other side of the spectrum basically agrees with me on a comment on one of Rabbi Slikfin's recent posts
TorahJew because to him moderation is not a "Torah True" virtue and the only virtuous thing in the world is complete and unquestioning dedication to God without any other standard of morality. Trying to justify killing Amalek is extraneous and comparing divinely inspired Judaism to foolish Islam is ridiculous.
I because of my dedication to moderation and a non-theocentric morality - and my claim that Orthodox Judaism does no represent that ideal.
It's interesting is we are both doing the same exact thing but for different ends! Claiming that the Torah does not represent any sort of humanistic or moderate ideal.
Historically a similar "alliance" happened when it came to the interpretation of the Rambam's Moreh Nevuchim in the Middle Ages. The conservative zealots and the extreme rationalists, joined hands in a sense, both imputing to the Rambam very radical super-rationalistic ideas. The zealots to show what a shocking guy the Rambam really was, and the extreme rationalists in order to show that the Rambam was an extreme rationalist like them!
Just thought it was interesting ...
Following up on the last post... I basically said that the only difference between "mitzvah-killing" in Judaism and "mitzvah-killing" in Islam, from an Orthodox perspective, is our Torah is right and their Quran is wrong.
My goal was to shatter the illusion that Orthodox Judaism is somehow more humane or moderate than other religions.
Ironically what seems to be an extremist on the other side of the spectrum basically agrees with me on a comment on one of Rabbi Slikfin's recent posts
TorahJew said...Both of us are trying to show that flaws of "justifying" the Torah but for different reasons.
Rabbi Slifkin, I'm not sure I understand your discussion here. If one believes that the Torah is God given, then there is no question -- it's actually a simple argument. God gave us the Torah. The Torah tells us to wipe out the nation of Amalek. End of story. The reason why terrorists have no moral basis is that the Koran (which they use to justify the killing of non-Muslims) was not given MiSinai. Am I missing something here? Or there is some issue with the idea of Torah MiSinai? (emphasis mine)
TorahJew because to him moderation is not a "Torah True" virtue and the only virtuous thing in the world is complete and unquestioning dedication to God without any other standard of morality. Trying to justify killing Amalek is extraneous and comparing divinely inspired Judaism to foolish Islam is ridiculous.
I because of my dedication to moderation and a non-theocentric morality - and my claim that Orthodox Judaism does no represent that ideal.
It's interesting is we are both doing the same exact thing but for different ends! Claiming that the Torah does not represent any sort of humanistic or moderate ideal.
Historically a similar "alliance" happened when it came to the interpretation of the Rambam's Moreh Nevuchim in the Middle Ages. The conservative zealots and the extreme rationalists, joined hands in a sense, both imputing to the Rambam very radical super-rationalistic ideas. The zealots to show what a shocking guy the Rambam really was, and the extreme rationalists in order to show that the Rambam was an extreme rationalist like them!
Just thought it was interesting ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
