tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post8527449030609664379..comments2019-07-22T22:10:18.110-07:00Comments on Atheodox Judaism: Problem #1: God Defies ReasonabilityAtheodox Jewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06404924424040480039noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-28695323661736105012013-06-20T04:37:24.983-07:002013-06-20T04:37:24.983-07:00Juda,
You're right that the Torah emphasizes...Juda, <br /><br />You're right that the Torah emphasizes that wonders were performed "in the eyes of all Yisrael" - including the very last pasuk in the Chumash! I realize that it has the ring of "All of you saw it, so it must be true." But it could have other meanings, such as the idea that *everyone* is in this deal, and therefore part of the brit and chayav in the mitzvot. There's also the concept of "mamlechet kohanim" - that unlike other nations who have only a select few who are set aside and in on the secret knowledge - for Yisrael *everyone* gets to be in on it, and anyone can be a navi (as in the Eldad and Meidad story). <br /><br /><i>IS THERE another tribe that had an origin story claiming to involve a miracle preformed in view of the entire nation?</i><br /><br />Is the "entire nation" required to make the proof? What if it's done in a public setting with hundreds of witnesses? Because there are other such claims. Plus, I don't know how often in history you have situations where the "entire nation" is physically situated together in one place. <br /><br />Doing a cursory Google search, I came across <a href="http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=81934" rel="nofollow">this link</a>. I like the last comment on the page by "Opus1". He/she gives a link to <a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/shlomi_tal/sinai.html" rel="nofollow">this page</a>, which is a rebuttal to the mass-revelation proof, which I thought was well-presented.<br /><br />All I can say is that just about EVERY religion has adherents who declare that theirs is the one True religion - their prophet(s), their god(s). And they bring argument after intricate argument as to how they've "proven" it to be so, going on until you're blue in the face. Many of these people are highly intelligent and articulate. What I'm saying is that I think we're naive if we think we're the only ones who are immune to this phenomenon. And if you hear about something that sounds "unbelievable", it probably is - especially when it doesn't comport with anything we've seen and experienced today, and when we know the story is coming out of a world which told those kinds of stories (of gods, miracles, etc.).<br /><br />Thanks BTW for the tip to look up Halivni-Weiss. I hadn't heard of him and look forward to reading his stuff!<br /><br />Best regards,<br />AJAtheodox Jewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06404924424040480039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-41579993943004146092013-06-19T11:33:24.951-07:002013-06-19T11:33:24.951-07:00thanks for taking the time to reply and has defini...thanks for taking the time to reply and has definitely given me some points for thought. however the way that the torah misinai proof is presented that i still cannot argue coherently against (even though my intuition tells me there is a flaw in the argument that i am missing) is that if something is a natural occurrence it repeats itself and since it was very common for nations to have supernatural origin myths that probably never happened why do none of these myths use public revelation as ours does? (this wasn't clear in my original question because i made a typo it should have read "if it was very common to include supernatural myths in a bronze age tribal religion's origin storys, IS THERE another tribe that had an origin story claiming to involve a miracle preformed in view of the entire nation?"<br /><br />also as an aside i think it is a logical misstep to assume that if it is proven that there was a divine revelation then obviously we still have what was revealed and all are bound to follow what is now claimed to be that original message. this is simply not true anyone intimately familiar with the torah realizes that we are hopelessly lost as to what was said i cannot think of even one halacha that we can say with a certainty was given at sinia and even the fundamental tools of how to deal with gaps of knowledge are not clear and subject to endless arguments and sfakeot so we basically have nothing that is definitively from that revelation that is not to say that we don't have anything from that revelation it can be looked at as a divine hint to nudge us towards the right path even though we will ultimately have to find the way ourselves (halivni-weis develops a variant of this idea in his chatu yisreal thesis)<br />thanks again for your thought provoking pieces judajudanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-91180090374308052482013-06-17T15:52:58.800-07:002013-06-17T15:52:58.800-07:00BTW, great questions!
Best, AJBTW, great questions!<br /><br />Best, AJAtheodox Jewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06404924424040480039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-68190039709188010782013-06-17T15:47:11.569-07:002013-06-17T15:47:11.569-07:00Like for instance... Maybe the Vishnu story was on...Like for instance... Maybe the Vishnu story was only first told several generations after the supposed revelation, as part of the national/religious story - a.k.a. as an origin myth. (After all, every legend and myth has to have some kind of "starting point".) And then it wouldn't really matter whether the revelation involved one person or one million people. No one was around from the generation of the story, or who even knew anyone from that generation... Point being, there are any number of ways to "shlug up" the mass-revelation claim by offering a more down-to-earth explanation.<br /><br />Ok, well if we'd react this way to the hypothetical claim of a Hindu mass-revelation, then the only thing keeping us from doing it with Torah is pure ethnic bias. But as people of integrity and truth, we should strive higher! To me, THAT is what separates us from the nations, from the other religions.<br /><br />Anyway, it goes without saying that the same logic applies to the survival of Klal Yisrael and Torah. Yes, it's fantastic and seemingly miraculous - something to treasure, to be grateful for, and not to ever take for granted. But is there really NO natural explanation we can possibly think of? Well, how about the fact that our adherence to Torah in exile has made us "mitzuyanim" - distinct - wherever we go. That's why I'm "Atheodox" and not a secular atheist. (At least part of why.) Because without all the ritual, without all the "weirdness", we'd assimilate and be lost. Yes, even without ritual we feel distinct, different from the other nations, and we get treated that way. Anti-Semitism affects Orthodox and secular Jews alike. But that "feeling" gets lost eventually unless we preserve it. We preserve Torah, and Torah preserves us. It's a wondrous thing - but also entirely within reason, within the frame of natural explanation.<br /><br />Again, I'm not saying people shouldn't be inspired by it. I'm not even saying they shouldn't attribute it to HKB"H if it helps them be more grateful and inspired and full of hope. But it's much better to call that belief "emuna" and not anything to do with a "proof". The latter I find to be intellectually dishonest, not something that befits the Am HaTorah. But even further, I want to see a place made for Torah Jews who *don't* hold that belief, who function better without it, for whom choosing natural explanations over "emuna" represents a more "mehadrin" approach to intellectual honesty. Halavai such people would be respected in the frum world, or at least not be made to feel like heretics!<br />Atheodox Jewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06404924424040480039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-52545842584056561242013-06-17T15:43:03.522-07:002013-06-17T15:43:03.522-07:00Hi Juda,
The gist of my response is this: Always ...Hi Juda,<br /><br />The gist of my response is this: Always look for the simpler explanation first.<br /><br />By "simple" I mean an explanation that fits with our understanding and observation of the world. A natural explanation is simpler - and therefore preferred - over a supernatural explanation. <br /><br />When someone claims to have seen a ghost, we don't take that claim at face value. We assume there's a 99.9% likelihood it was something else. Maybe it was a hallucination, a dream, some sort of movement that the person interpreted as a ghost, a trick the person fell for, etc. All of these are things we humans are susceptible to. That being the case, wouldn't it be *far* simpler, more reasonable - and more preferable - to go with one of these explanations, rather than having to posit the existence of other-worldly "spirits"?<br /><br />Same thing with the claim of Divine revelation. If there's a simpler explanation, shouldn't we prefer that over a supernatural explanation? It's easier to see I think if we pretend we're looking at another religion.<br /><br />Let's say hypothetically that Hinduism had the tradition of a mass-revelation event of the god Vishnu. How would we as Jews react to it? We'd of course assume it was false. There HAS to be another explanation. Why? Because the claim of a mass-revelation of Vishnu can't possibly be true! Otherwise, prove it - show me "Vishnu". I've never seen him, have you?<br /><br />But what if a Hindu pressed the point further, and asked: "If the story of Vishnu's revelation was made up, how could such a fabrication that supposedly involved millions of witnesses initially have been believed? Who would've believed it first?" Or they'd ask the question this way: "How could millions of Hindus have separately received the same story about Vishnu from their grandparents, who were told by their grandparents, and so on for thousands of years, if the story weren't true?" Hearing those questions, would we call that a slam dunk proof and all convert to Hinduism? I think not! No, we'd stand firm in our nonbelief and offer alternative explanations as to how they could've received such a tradition.<br /><br />(Sorry, too long of a response - to be continued...)Atheodox Jewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06404924424040480039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-80750220949603166702013-06-16T11:16:09.655-07:002013-06-16T11:16:09.655-07:00just a short come lately post from an aspiring ath...just a short come lately post from an aspiring atheist i agree with a lot of questions you raised in this artificial however two points that i still get stuck at every time i try arguing in favor of aethism in my kollel are 1.if it was very common to include supernatural myths in a bronze age tribal religion's origin storys can another tribe that had an origin story claiming to involve a miracle preformed in view of the entire nation?(this varification seems to be specifacly discussed in devrim ki shal na liyamim...) 2.if this was just a typical tribal war god then the historical continuation of this particular Mesopotamian doctrine long after all its contemporary's have faded from the scene is very a very peculiar fluke and a divine orchestration is definitely within the bounds of a reasonable explanation (i know there are still lots of Buddhists a couple zasterians and a bunch of other religions claiming to date back to antiquity but none of these have a contemporary vibrancy as still relevant or real connection to the ancient religions they claim to have inherited) judanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-23319043023910621202012-06-23T12:17:43.943-07:002012-06-23T12:17:43.943-07:00Larry,
Thanks for pointing out what I said about ...Larry,<br /><br />Thanks for pointing out what I said about theological complexity and lack of reasonability. Even though I believe it's the case re: "God's benevolence", I realize that I don't want to make this into some kind of "rule", so I changed it to say, "<i>often</i> the less reasonable the speculation becomes..." I think that's better.<br /><br />Yes, for sure I could say that fundamentalism defies reasonability. My use of "God" is partly as shorthand, and designed to catch people's attention. But there's a part of me that doesn't want to let God off the hook either. The reason I "pick on" Jews is not because there aren't others to pick on regarding fundamentalism, but because as a Jew I have a particular interest in seeing us do better. And while I first and foremost want to focus on literalist/fundamentalist beliefs in God, I think evolving as a people also means reconsidering our belief in God in general - even what I'd call more "reasonable" belief. But this is a longer conversation, which maybe I'll tackle in a post sometime.<br /><br />Again, great comments!<br />AJAtheodox Jewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06404924424040480039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-6633851759396330982012-06-22T10:16:13.163-07:002012-06-22T10:16:13.163-07:00AJ –
In your most recent reply to me, it seems li...AJ –<br /><br />In your most recent reply to me, it seems like you’re not claiming that belief in God is per se unreasonable, or that all existing systems providing for belief in God are unreasonable. (In fairness, you DID say originally that belief in a creator God was reasonable, but you qualified this by saying that such belief is psychologically reasonable, in that it is “natural” for people to believe in a creator God. But you went on to say that the idea of God is pure speculation and that this speculation loses most or all reasonability once one buys into a complex theological system.) <br /><br /> Instead, from your last reply, you now seem to be arguing only that “mainstream Orthodox belief” in God is unreasonable. By this, I don’t read you to be picking on the Jews! Instead, I think what you’re describing is a particular attitude towards God and scripture, which you might call “fundamentalist” and I might call “literalist”, that might (and indeed does) exist in any number of belief systems outside of Judaism.<br /><br />If indeed this is your argument, then one “reasonable” response to your argument would be to advocate a more “reasonable” form for belief in God. While your original post seemed to equate unreasonability with theological complexity, there are many complex theological systems that are not literalist or fundamentalist that (consistent with your last reply) might be deemed to be “reasonable”. You write in a way that suggests you are probably aware of such non-fundamentalist belief systems. <br /><br />So instead of arguing that God defies reasonability, why not argue instead that fundamentalism defies reasonability?Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08976868079076669453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-16122688354932760032012-06-22T01:31:42.082-07:002012-06-22T01:31:42.082-07:00Larry,
If “reasonableness” is a hard thing to pin...Larry,<br /><br /><i>If “reasonableness” is a hard thing to pin down, then logically it should also be hard to pin down whether theism or atheism is reasonable or unreasonable.</i><br /><br />As soon as I submitted my response I knew I had that one coming! The point I wanted to make in my reply to you is that I agree there are different definitions and contexts of reasonability, so ultimately I don't judge people from having the beliefs that they do. Virtually no one <i>tries</i> to be "unreasonable".<br /><br />So how do I justify a "God defies reasonability" position? First off, I think I was fairly clear about qualifying the argument as referring specifically to the Biblical God, and the mainstream Orthodox belief that if someone were to come back with video footage from 3300 years ago, what we would see is exactly what is described in the Torah. And while it may be "reasonable" for people to believe that for any number of social/psychological reasons (again I don't want to judge individuals for their beliefs), from a strictly truth-content POV, it is so unreasonable (in the sense of being <i>extremely improbable</i>) that it borders on absurdity.<br /><br />Why do I have to point this out in such a provocative way? (I don't know if you're asking this, but I'm bringing it up anyway.) If I want to make the case for Atheodoxy (non-belief coupled with observance), why not simply say that <i>not</i> believing in the God of the Bible is "reasonable" from a truth-content POV? Why call someone else out for being <i>unreasonable</i>? It probably has to do with the factors I cited at the end of my previous response. What I want to argue is that not only is it "within reason" to take an Atheodox position, but that Atheodoxy could be said to represent a <i>more idealistic</i> position than traditional Orthodoxy, by maintaining a robust Torah Judaism without the fundamentalism. And to make that argument I feel I need to be a bit provocative and point out the problems with traditional Orthodox belief.<br /><br />That's more or less where I'm coming from.Atheodox Jewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06404924424040480039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-13223181590143381142012-06-21T22:27:15.452-07:002012-06-21T22:27:15.452-07:00AJ –
I’m struggling to understand your argument t...AJ –<br /><br />I’m struggling to understand your argument that belief in God is unreasonable.<br /><br />If “reasonableness” is a hard thing to pin down, then logically it should also be hard to pin down whether theism or atheism is reasonable or unreasonable. <br /><br />If what is “reasonable” is context-sensitive, and if God-belief is reasonable in certain contexts, then the issue seems to boil down to whether we prefer the contexts where God-belief is not reasonable over those contexts where God-belief is reasonable. <br /><br />The contexts you suggest are a mixed bag. A Young Earth Creationist is by definition a God-believer who also believes in a 6,000 year old universe (unless there are atheist Young Earthers!), so Young Earth creationism is not so much a context where God-belief is reasonable as a label for a type of God-believer. (In contrast, there ARE scientists who both believe in God AND believe in a 6,000 year-old universe. There’s even a network of them – you can Google it. You may not like the science they practice, but it IS out there.) <br /><br />In contrast, science IS a context within which to judge the reasonableness of certain beliefs. For example, I think that science provides a context within which to judge a claim for the age of the universe. However, science does NOT provide a context to judge the reasonableness of God-belief. By its nature science is limited to the controlled observation of natural phenomena, and on advancing natural explanations for these phenomena. Things that cannot be explained by scientists as having natural causes are left unexplained. Unless you think that scientific knowledge is the only kind of knowledge, it would appear that the existence of God falls wholly outside of the scientific purview. In other words, science is not so much a context where God-belief is unreasonable, as it is a sphere of activity where God-existence is not investigated.<br /><br />You mentioned other possible contexts: a “secular” context (which I think is simply saying a non-religious context), a “culture of belief”, a context of those who want to appear to be kosher Jews – but again, these contexts are ones DEFINED by God-belief. Really, these are not so much contexts as communities. It is not so much that these communities provide a context for God-belief, but instead that God-belief is a condition for membership in these communities.<br /><br />You might have suggested other contexts. Perhaps military communities are more or less likely to believe in God. Perhaps agricultural communities (reliant as they may be on favorable weather) might be more likely to believe in God. Perhaps academic communities, or communities built around industry or technology, might be less likely to believe in God. <br /><br />I’m not sure what any of this would prove, in terms of “reasonableness” of belief in God. In fact, your example seems to point to something else altogether, as your favorable view of atheism is contrary to the context of the community where you live and with which you identify. Following your argument, it would seem “unreasonable” for you to deny belief in God! But clearly you intend to argue otherwise. I presume that you are appealing to a different context, where your views are “reasonable” and belief in God is “unreasonable”. In fact, you seem to be arguing that many (or most?) Orthodox Jews already exist within this different context, or can be persuaded to adopt this different context. I’m just not getting what this different context consists of, and why it’s necessarily better than contexts where God-belief is reasonable.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08976868079076669453noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-284269270020680842012-06-21T15:30:46.352-07:002012-06-21T15:30:46.352-07:00Larry, you make a very reasonable point. (Sorry, c...Larry, you make a very reasonable point. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)<br /><br />I fully admit that I employ a fuzzy definition of "reasonable". Because it <i>is</i> a hard thing to pin down, and I'm not sure I want to be so precise about it. What is "reasonable" is highly context-sensitive, and depends on the perspective of the person doing the evaluating. <br /><br />So for instance, I would say it's "reasonable" from a social/cultural POV for a person raised in a Young Earth Creationist milieu to believe that the Earth is less than 6000 years old. After all, you can't really blame them. But for most scientists, the notion is completely absurd, totally <i>unreasonable</i>, because there is such a preponderance of evidence pointing to an Earth that's billions of years old. <br /><br />As far as the existence of God, since there is not a single scrap of "hard evidence" to the positive (Intelligent Design claims aside), it would not be reasonable to claim that God exists from a normative scientific POV. Although from a human psychology POV, it is reasonable to think that everything has a "maker". And even from a scientific POV, the idea of a Creator is "more reasonable" than the idea of the Biblical God, because whereas the former has no evidence "against" it per se, the latter certainly does (in the sense of there being other explanations which are far simpler, and accord with our empirical experience as well as research). <br /><br />But again, belief in the Biblical God is only "unreasonable" from the POV either of an average secular person off the street, or of someone who has some knowledge of ancient cultures, Biblical criticism, etc. For someone raised in a culture of belief, or who adopted the belief, or who has doubts but wants to be counted as a "kosher" Jew, it is "reasonable" for any of those (and other people depending on their circumstances) to believe in the God of the Torah. <br /><br />I realize this answer is probably far from satisfactory, since it makes reasonability very much <i>subjective</i>, and perhaps there would be some sense in my qualifying what I mean in various cases, like "scientifically reasonable" or "reasonable insofar as being statistically probable" or "reasonable in the sense of having no evidence against it" or "reasonable from the POV of X person" - or using the definitions you brought above. But sometimes trying to "objectify" something which is subjective ends up opening a can of worms, and the point is better taken if left a bit fuzzy. That's my sense here. That said, if there's some way to use a few qualifiers and add more clarity without things getting too "wormy", I'm open to that.<br /><br />Lastly, about unreasonable belief in God being a "bad thing", it's not necessarily. But in some cases it is. From my POV... It is "bad" if it results in the ostracizing of Jews who don't accept that belief. It is "bad" if it makes Torah look absurd and pushes away Jews who would otherwise be enriched by Judaism. It is "bad" if it results in unhealthy, violent or otherwise cult-like communal behavior. You get the point.<br /><br />Great comments - thanks for taking the time!Atheodox Jewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06404924424040480039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-41541500271749624.post-43372736170636608702012-06-21T13:23:00.838-07:002012-06-21T13:23:00.838-07:00AJ, what do you mean by "reasonable"? I ...AJ, what do you mean by "reasonable"? I think that you're using this term in a number of ways. <br /><br />When you say "Truth arguments relate to whether or not it is reasonable to postulate God's existence", you appear to be using "reasonable" in the sense that reasonableness = truth content. <br /><br />Upon stating that God’s existence cannot be proven conclusively, you state that “The question relates to the reasonability of postulating” that God does or does not exist. This looks like a refinement in the meaning of your use of the word “reasonable” – you’re taking the position that reasonableness -> probability of truth. In other words, it might be reasonable to postulate God’s existence even if we were only 90% sure that God exists. Or maybe 75% certainty is reasonable, or maybe “more likely than not” is reasonable. I don’t mean to sound facetious, because in life a “reasonable” truth probability depends on the overall situation. In a civil court case, we may require only “more likely than not”, but in a criminal court case we might require “beyond a reasonable doubt”. <br /><br />But there’s a potential divide in meaning here that I think we should acknowledge. Belief in God (1) might be “reasonable” in the abstract sense that it could be true, or (2) it might be reasonable in the sense that it is susceptible to proof, or (3) it might be reasonable in the sense that we have some ability to prove it true, or (4) it might be reasonable to the extent that we have proven it true. Consider the statement that the world is round. This statement is reasonable in the sense of (1) and (2), and today in the sense of (3) and (4). But 5,500 years ago it was not reasonable to believe that the world was round in the sense of (3), there being no way to prove world roundness with the then-existing math and technology. The claims made in modern string theory appear to be reasonable in the sense of (1), but they’re not reasonable in the sense of (3) and (4), and they may not be reasonable in the sense of (2) either. Belief in God is like belief in string theory, or belief in the “multiverse” that many atheists use to explain how the universe where we live could have come into being without a God. <br /><br />Later on you appear to use “reasonable” in other senses. So there is much more to say here, but this is a good place to pause and consider what we mean by reasonability, and why we think that an unreasonable belief in God is a bad thing.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08976868079076669453noreply@blogger.com