In the discussion that followed
RG, I'll take your question one step further. Why would I think there is a god to question in the first place?Why do we start from the premise that there is a God? I think this is an important point that is often over looked. I think that when you are trying to get to the truth of an issue you need to first identify what it is you know and then work your way up from the facts you can confirm. Otherwise, you risk building your case on a faulty foundation. That said the Big Bang/First Cause is the only thing I have ever seen that maybe, implies, the existence of at least one supernatural creator/s. But that is far from proof.
The only reason I ever believed in God was because my parents told me he exists. In all seriousness they also told me that the tooth fairy left cash for me under my pillow in exchange for my tooth. Why should I keep one belief but reject the other?
Why don't we give the tooth fairy the same pass we give God? I'll put a quarter under the pillow of anyone who can prove to me there's no tooth fairy.
70 comments:
For one thing, the purporters of the tooth fairy myth readily admit that it's a myth while the story of G-d existence has been retold and acceded to for thousands of years.
Thanks for mentioning me. XGH is too cowardly to deign to mention me.
"That said the Big Bang/First Cause is the only thing I have ever seen that maybe, implies, the existence of at least one supernatural creator/s. But that is far from proof."
Hold on Lubab No More. You said for sure there is no G-d. Now tell me why you don't see the above as good ground for believing in G-d?
"I'll put a quarter under the pillow of anyone who can prove to me there's no tooth fairy."
I'll accept a check for the Quarter. If you define a fairy as supernatural you can never prove a fairy in science. You can prove whether something has wings and collects teeth and puts it under pillows but that's it. We don't normally refer to supernatural beings when we speak of what's in the universe. So in that sense there is for sure no fairies. On other levels of reality could there be fairies? We Jews seem to live without them. There are some who feel that in a multiverse it means there should be even real Greek gods in an alternate Mount Olympus reality. It seems to me though that the full qualities of godhood for those Greek gods could not be scientifically provable in any universe. They would just look like very powerful people. The same with those tooth fairies. We certainly don't have for our reality scientific proof or religious need to infer their existence.
No one admitted any myths to me. Sounds like more lies from the Cavity Creeps. Don't believe everything the ADA tells you Nemo.
The stuff that leads to belief in God is that a) the universe didn't always exist and b) it works pretty well and produces pretty amazing stuff.
Do these facts lead to belief that the world is the product of some cosmic accident? That's a conclusion I have more trouble believing than its opposite.
Lubab No More No one believed in passing down belief in the tooth fairy beyond playfully with children. So it's not a real claim
RG, there are varying traditions as to what form the Tooth Fairy takes. The tradition passed down to me is that It's form is similar to that of the Fairy Godmother. Human in size but intangible and certainly at times invisible.
> No one believed in passing down belief in the tooth fairy beyond playfully with children. So it's not a real claim
Just because people don't believe in the Tooth Fairy doesn't make It any less true. Billions of people don't believe in your god but that doesn't make him any less true to you.
"Why don't we give the tooth fairy the same pass we give God? I'll put a quarter under the pillow of anyone who can prove to me there's no tooth fairy."
I don't get your problem. You shouln't give either a "pass" but at the same time, God is a much more serious and foundational proposition than the TF, so you may give it more leeway.
> The stuff that leads to belief in God is that a) the universe didn't always exist and b) it works pretty well and produces pretty amazing stuff.
The nature of the universe is certainly fascinating but that doesn't mean it is proof of anything.
I would give a counter example to make my point but since you have defined literally everything as created by God I can offer no example that doesn't fit into the space you have defined.
"The nature of the universe is certainly fascinating but that doesn't mean it is proof of anything."
That's true. But "proof" is a rather high bar, eh? I'm not trying to fool you with fancy pseudo-logic, but God is a reasonable conclusion.
Could I be wrong? Sure. But it makes more sense to me than the alternative.
> You shouln't give either a "pass" but at the same time, God is a much more serious and foundational proposition than the TF, so you may give it more leeway.
Which is it? Do you agree not to give god a pass or do you choose to give god more leeway?
If anything because "God is a much more serious and foundational proposition" you should make the tests more strict because the stakes are higher.
And you should know, this is coming from someone who once called himself an atheist.
"Lubab No More said...
I like this discussion so much I made a post out of it.
http://lubabnomore.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-i-dont-believe-in-god.html
Here are my responses to your last few questions. Feel free to move the discussion to the new post."
Thanks I will.
"> A tooth fairy isn't the issue. We don't need a tooth fairy to explain reality.
Says who? At the very least it explains why I have two sets of teeth! (Don't trust the ADA. Those scientists just want to take your money!!!)"
How come I never really believed in the tooth fairy?...Oh well.
"> We don't see other universes. Do you disbelieve in other universes for sure?
I have no reason to absolutely believe that other universes exist. Until I am presented proof of their existence I don't believe in them."
You mean you know for sure there are no other universes? They would explain randomness as not really random because everything possible happens in some universe.
"> Science can't prove itself or prove freewill or morality. Are all these illusions?
We may indeed not have any free will. However on this point the existence of god would probably solidify a lack of free will."
Free will is outside science since you pick a choice outside of any cause and so are responsible for your behavior.
"Define morality. I believe there are certain behaviors preprogrammed into our DNA."
Then on what basis do some people not follow those behaviors? As for defining morality I will do no such thing. You know what it is. It is not just a description of behavior. It is prescribing what it should be. If we don't have an intuitive picture what that concept means then you don't believe in the concept of morality only behaviors, but that requires you to ignore that you know what the difference between prescribing behavior and describing it is. You then ignore a part of reality you experience.
""Religion and the police are not the reasons that I don't kill people."
Why not? If it's only programing and we may not even have freewill what meaning is there for you in the statement "don't do this"?
"Lubab No More said...
RG, there are varying traditions as to what form the Tooth Fairy takes. The tradition passed down to me is that It's form is similar to that of the Fairy Godmother. Human in size but intangible and certainly at times invisible."
Ooh Wow! I believe! I believe!
> But it makes more sense to me than the alternative.
If this is your reasoning then you are not really debating the existence of god. You are only trying to find the answer that makes the most sense to you. Real truth is not so subjective.
LBN,
"Which is it? Do you agree not to give god a pass or do you choose to give god more leeway?"
It's not a "pass." Just because you heard it from your parents doesn't mean you should accept it, but given the great field of human ignorance that we must honestly acknowledge, if you set the bar too high then you run the risk of letting the truth escape.
Suppose a doctor is trying to make a diagnosis for a severely ill patient yet the tests are not conclusive. Can he just walk away from the problem or should he take his best shot? If he sets his strandards too high then the patient is dead.
LNM,
"If this is your reasoning then you are not really debating the existence of god. You are only trying to find the answer that makes the most sense to you. Real truth is not so subjective."
In the absence of conclusive data you have to go with what makes the most sense to you. What's your alternative?
> Suppose a doctor is trying to make a diagnosis for a severely ill patient yet the tests are not conclusive.
In the doctor example the doctor knows there is a problem. I don't know that there is a problem here that needs to be solved.
>In the absence of conclusive data you have to go with what makes the most sense to you. What's your alternative?
In the absence of conclusive data you don't have to make any conclusions at all. In the case of god however, there is a significant lack of unexplainable data.
"Lubab No More said...
> No one believed in passing down belief in the tooth fairy beyond playfully with children. So it's not a real claim
Just because people don't believe in the Tooth Fairy doesn't make It any less true. Billions of people don't believe in your god but that doesn't make him any less true to you."
Our morality and ethics, in other words the feeling we have to do somethings is from our cultures not from one person saying something. So do you want to believe in many realities overlapping and each nation collapses its own Quantum wavefunction? That would be a modern version of what was believed before Judaism.
"Lubab No More said...
> But it makes more sense to me than the alternative.
If this is your reasoning then you are not really debating the existence of god. You are only trying to find the answer that makes the most sense to you. Real truth is not so subjective."
But you are being subjective. Why do you believe all certain things may exist in our universe. Just deny them.
LNM,
"I don't know that there is a problem here that needs to be solved."
Why the world is the way it is? What should we do with our lives? These are questions that you need to answer one way or the other.
"In the absence of conclusive data you don't have to make any conclusions at all."
Sorry, you're not that free. If there's a possibility that God matters then you need to decide one way or the other. And even if you don't decide intellectually, you still have to live your life operationally if either it is true or not. Not making a decision is tantamount to a decision.
"In the case of god however, there is a significant lack of unexplainable data."
Huh? What are you talking about?
"Lubab No More said...
> The stuff that leads to belief in God is that a) the universe didn't always exist and b) it works pretty well and produces pretty amazing stuff.
The nature of the universe is certainly fascinating but that doesn't mean it is proof of anything."
So don't believe in science. It is showing causes by definition.
"I don't know that there is a problem here that needs to be solved."
So don't believe in science. Forget cause and affect. Everything just is the way it is.
Judaism or any faith is not based upon logic. It is based upon unconditional faith. That being said, I postulate that if the myth of "olam habah" were removed from orthodox belief, the number of kapotahs, bekeshas, black hats, shtremiels, gartels, tefillins, mezuzas,kittles, talisim, tzitzes,kiphas and thrice daily genuflecting would rapidly dissappear. Ooops I forgot to mention, milichigs, fleishigs, pareva, cholov yisreal, pas yisrael kemach yoshon (not in lubavitch) shietels, falls and bullet proof stockings(not in Lubavitch)
I am sorry that you feel the way you do. I am really not able to discuss this topic because i am not educated enough to rebuke how you feel. I personaly will always beleive there is a god because there are to many things that can not posibilty exist if there wasnt. I dont understand all that happens and why god makes us suffer. But we will find out in the next world.
Karl Popper, the philosopher, talked about unfalsifiable theories...theories that, by virtue of their own parameters, are impossible to prove wrong. Such theories include god, marxism, and psychology. You can't prove god wrong, becuase people can always come and say that god doesn't give proof becuase proof would negate the power of faith, god could have put the dinasour bones in the earth, etc. You can't prove marxism wrong because he says that capitalism will eventually collapse and lead to communism, and the end of time hasnt' happened yet, so unless time ends and we never have communism, he might conceivably be right at some time in the future.
Popper's point was that any argument that is unfalsifibale is not scientific- it is psuedoscience. The existance of god is never going to be proven to you, becuase the ideas in modern society about god are inherintly unfalsifiable. Trying to apply the scientific method to the idea of god is never going to work, becuase there is no proof, and arguments about god are not scientific. in fact, i'd say most of them pretty blatently defy god.
There is a huge philosophical tradition debating the existance of god. I haven't really studyed any of it since my freshman year in college (8 years ago), but you might want to look into those arguments rather than looking for scientific proof.
Proving God exists is a no-brainer. A machine must have an intelligent designer. Living things are machines. Therefore God exists.
I have a post about this.
LNM, I didn't say that.
I said:
1) You can't prove G-d exists, AND you can't prove G-d doesn't exist. This being so, you can CHOOSE to believe one or the other, and that choice will be made based on the motives that move you. I said that it's more fruitful to examine the motives than to get your undies in a knot trying to prove or disprove G-d.
2) Further, I said that I CHOOSE to believe G-d exists and that Providence exists.
It seems more intellectually satisfying that there is a First Cause we call "G-d" than an of the competing theories (like multiverses). I also said that even if this is so, an athiest who is a deist (who believes G-d exists but does not believe in Providence)can believe this also, and that the ikkar of all your posts dissolves into two major questions:
A) Is there providence - If G-d exists, does He really care about me or anything else around me, and does it matter to him if I behave this way or a different way?
and
B) If there is providence, does the Torah represent G-d's communication to us regarding how Providence works?
I agreed with you that it seems to me that G-d did not write the Torah in the sense that "it was dictated to Moshe". My own view is that I can "buy" that G-d (I do believe in G-d and Providence) communicated "concepts" to Jews. Orthoprax listed the quote in Midrash Rabba in a recent post that asserts precisely this. I believe that the words of Torah are man-originated, and the whole idea of halacha and hermenuetical rules is interesting, and even socially useful because it serves to organize our communities and our lives within them, but not divine.
Now, as I said you can't prove or disprove G-d. For sure then, you can't even offer an opinion about whether Providence is real. What I suggested to you, and what I do, is to choose the option that yields the best results. In my opinion, Judaism, the first religion with a concept of "tzelem elokim", has outperformed all other beliefs and non-beliefs. Since life requires choices and laughs at people who sit on the sidelines contemplating their navals (and those who demand "T"ruth), pick the lifestyle that enables you to yield the best results. Laugh under your breath at the naivety of those who believe in fairytales, but nevertheless give hakarat hatov and respect to the communities that have raised us with a sense of obligation, rather than a sense of "magiah lee", because it is the former that inspire people to build better societies.
"Popper's point was that any argument that is unfalsifibale is not scientific- it is psuedoscience."
That's like the view that any argument that is not "rational" is "irrational".
Ken Wilbur treats all this stuff pretty well in his books. Basically, his position is that the age of the kind of rationalism Popper engaged in has ended. Rationalism doesn't work as it's advertised to work - it can't explain the whole world, and to do that you need to integrate the Spiritual with the Intellectual, and not expect either to win our allegiance in our search for Truth.
Shai,
> LNM, I didn't say that.
Ok. Credit removed.
> the whole idea of halacha and hermenuetical rules is interesting, and even socially useful because it serves to organize our communities and our lives within them, but not divine.
If it is not divine, and was written by man, what makes it more special than the U.S. Constitution?
> choose the option that yields the best results. In my opinion, Judaism, the first religion with a concept of "tzelem elokim", has outperformed all other beliefs and non-beliefs.
Then why not become a reform Jew? They offer the societal benefits of community and the religious commitment of obligation to your fellow man.
You make a strong case to follow some form of Judaism (if one believes in god) but not specifically Orthodoxy.
> Free will is outside science since you pick a choice outside of any cause and so are responsible for your behavior.
Very good! I like it. I can already tell I'm going to be thinking about this idea for a couple days. My first impressions is our decisions are the function of our nature and nurture. Which of course implies a lack of free will which is why I'm going to be thinking about this idea for a couple days. :)
>> I believe there are certain behaviors preprogrammed into our DNA.
> Then on what basis do some people not follow those behaviors?
We are not bound by our nature. We fast on Yom Kippur despite a clear instinct to eat. I'm just saying that the baseline behavior is not to kill.
>>Religion and the police are not the reasons that I don't kill people.
> Why not? If it's only programing and we may not even have freewill what meaning is there for you in the statement "don't do this"?
The statement "don't do this" can have meaning to me. But it depends on who is saying it. When the statement comes from someone I trust it generally carries more weight. But I acknowledge that I am choosing to follow the advice and that it is not a commandment.
Orthoprax,
>> In the case of god however, there is a significant lack of unexplainable data."
We have reasonable explanations for most of what we observe on this world and in the universe. Most of the phenomenon religion has attributed to god over the centuries (plagues, droughts, childlessness, etc.) have been explained.
>>In the absence of conclusive data you don't have to make any conclusions at all.
> Sorry, you're not that free. If there's a possibility that God matters then you need to decide one way or the other.
Fair enough. In the absence of conclusive data a reasonable conclusion is: does not exist. An unreasonable conclusion would be: proof of existence. Going back to your example of the doctor with the severely ill patient who's tests are inconclusive, the doctor has to act but she doesn't know that she is making the correct decision. The doctor knows that she doesn't know.
Jay, interesting theory. On a similar note. Check out Baal Habos' recent post: Golden Handcuffs.
Lubab No More you on one hand by considering whether G-d exists are accepting methododlogy outside science. On the other hand you say the Big Bang/First Cause hardly shows G-d. You have only your opinion on this. On what basis do you say that? How about a methodology. All I get from skeptics is philosophy and nothing reproducble. So how is that more scientific in method?
"We have reasonable explanations for most of what we observe on this world and in the universe."
Are you kidding? We have more questions than answers but the answers point to G-d.
"Most of the phenomenon religion has attributed to god over the centuries (plagues, droughts, childlessness, etc.) have been explained."
You seem to think that G-d is found outside of science. He works through science. How is seeing a process excluding G-d when we still want to know what's behind the process.
"Fair enough. In the absence of conclusive data a reasonable conclusion is: does not exist."
Wrong. In the absense of conclusive data a reasonable scientific conclusion is you don't know. But that's not an answer. that's admitting ignorance which is not a discovery. It's what you started with.
"Lubab No More said...
> Free will is outside science since you pick a choice outside of any cause and so are responsible for your behavior.
Very good! I like it. I can already tell I'm going to be thinking about this idea for a couple days. My first impressions is our decisions are the function of our nature and nurture. Which of course implies a lack of free will which is why I'm going to be thinking about this idea for a couple days. :)"
So if we have no free will why be upset with anyone? They're not responsible. This is going to be your weakest point. I'm going to go after it. :)
">> I believe there are certain behaviors preprogrammed into our DNA.
> Then on what basis do some people not follow those behaviors?
We are not bound by our nature. We fast on Yom Kippur despite a clear instinct to eat. I'm just saying that the baseline behavior is not to kill."
Where is this behavior programming located? Gotcha! :) The fact is if not for society we would not know what to expect from people. Raised by wolves we would be stunted.
">>Religion and the police are not the reasons that I don't kill people.
> Why not? If it's only programing and we may not even have freewill what meaning is there for you in the statement "don't do this"?
The statement "don't do this" can have meaning to me. But it depends on who is saying it. When the statement comes from someone I trust it generally carries more weight. But I acknowledge that I am choosing to follow the advice and that it is not a commandment."
That's scary as it means there is no right or wrong.
Rabban Gamliel,
> You seem to think that G-d is found outside of science. He works through science. How is seeing a process excluding G-d when we still want to know what's behind the process.
Perhaps you mean "He works through nature"?
The religion that allegedly comes from god explains that god commits plagues, droughts, childlessness, etc. with intent to teach or punish. There is no correlation between these events and the faith of the people who are afflicted by them. If there was a correlation I would consider that proof of god and religion.
> So if we have no free will why be upset with anyone? They're not responsible.
I can't help being upset. I have no free will! :P
>> I believe there are certain behaviors preprogrammed into our DNA.
> Where is this behavior programming located?
Ask Dr. Joshua Greene. He's working on this issue. In the link read the section titled "Moral Dilemmas and the Trolley Problem." Fascinating stuff.
>> But I acknowledge that I am choosing to follow the advice and that it is not a commandment.
> That's scary as it means there is no right or wrong.
It ain't perfect but following your own internal conscious is better than blindly following the words of a thousand year old book or religious leader who may tell you to blow up a bus.
"Ask Dr. Joshua Greene. He's working on this issue. In the link read the section titled "Moral Dilemmas and the Trolley Problem." Fascinating stuff."
I did in the past email him. Check out my site on that http://rabbangamliel.blogspot.com/2007/01/neural-basis-of-moral-feeling.html But there is no right or wrong from this. There are only tendencies that show a feeling for some type of morals in place of chaos but there's no content or biology forcing objective moral choices on us.
"It ain't perfect but following your own internal conscious is better than blindly following the words of a thousand year old book or religious leader who may tell you to blow up a bus."
Maybe for your internal conscious but it is incomplete and based on societal influences. What makes you think all societies have the same internal conscious?
"Lubab No More said...
Rabban Gamliel,
> You seem to think that G-d is found outside of science. He works through science. How is seeing a process excluding G-d when we still want to know what's behind the process.
Perhaps you mean "He works through nature"?"
I mean science.
"The religion that allegedly comes from god explains that god commits plagues, droughts, childlessness, etc. with intent to teach or punish. There is no correlation between these events and the faith of the people who are afflicted by them. If there was a correlation I would consider that proof of god and religion."
We create our own punishments. The hand of G-d is in history and it affects people of all faiths. Just look at the prophesies directed against other nations.
Lubab No More if you don't have freewill then you are only an automaton and don't have any feelings or ideas. Who am I arguing with?
LBN,
>RG, I'll take your question one step further. Why would I think there is a god to question in the first place
I think the natural position or default position to take, is that there is a God. If not, then explain why most societies developed that way. Whether polytheism or Monotheism, people by default seem to believe or need that there is a God.
That is not to say that the default intuitive position is correct.
But I think that does put the onus on the atheistic position.
Or let me re-state that by questioning the following claim you made.
"The only reason I ever believed in God was because my parents told me he exists."
Is that really true? Had you had no input from society on the matter, what do you think your position would be?
LNM,
"We have reasonable explanations for most of what we observe on this world and in the universe."
Proximate causes only - and even then there's plenty we don't know.
"Most of the phenomenon religion has attributed to god over the centuries (plagues, droughts, childlessness, etc.) have been explained."
True, but that has little bearing on philosophical truth one way or the other. That you don't believe in the same type of God as people in the past is a given, but that no God of any sort exists? That is a leap.
"Fair enough. In the absence of conclusive data a reasonable conclusion is: does not exist. An unreasonable conclusion would be: proof of existence."
Um...yeah. That's not a valid dilemma though. The two reasonable conclusions is to believe that God does or does not exist, not to pretend that one posesses proof either way. You have to decide between those two choices based on what makes the most sense to you.
"Going back to your example of the doctor with the severely ill patient who's tests are inconclusive, the doctor has to act but she doesn't know that she is making the correct decision. The doctor knows that she doesn't know."
Who's arguing?!
>Is that really true? Had you had no input from society on the matter, what do you think your position would be?
I probably agree with you, but society DID develop that way. In a way, if there is a God, the mechanism for that idea to spread IS by parent to child. I don't see another way. Unless we are talking about how the greek stories go.
"If it is not divine, and was written by man, what makes it more special than the U.S. Constitution?"
Actually, a lot of what's special about the US Constitution is that it's based on principles, the equality and value of all people, that Jews originated. The US in many respects is a more "Jewish" state than socialist Israel is. The "specialness" is in what's said, not the source.
"Then why not become a reform Jew? They offer the societal benefits of community and the religious commitment of obligation to your fellow man."
Because Reform Judaism is ALSO making a mistake by making a big deal about ritual, who's a Jew, who's a Rabbi, etc. I believe that their "Tikkun Olam" message is spot on, though. It's the rest of the ritualistic pretensions that turn me off.
"You make a strong case to follow some form of Judaism (if one believes in god) but not specifically Orthodoxy."
I believe that you have to make your own Judaism. I also believe that there is nothing long with ritual as long as it serves the ideas and concepts that are the ikkarim. Problem is, everybody's always splitting hairs about ritualistic things and I find that a waste of time.
I am coming in late to this discussion, but I will respond to the main early point of contention between Rabban Gamliel and LNM.
LNM says that we don't even have to deal with the issue of God since there is no basis to begin dealing with him that we need to disprove. We only know him from our tradition and that is not a strong enough reality to require disproof in order to reject.
RG responds, with classical Intelligent Design argument; that the working universe either proves or implies a god so therefore we must deal with that hypothesis and in order to reject, we must disprove first (which cannot be done.)
RG:
The mistake that you are making in your logic, IMHO, and this is where my thinking is these days (while i used to be a strong ID advocate): your argument is nice and fine, but if God really exists and he really wants me to aknowledge his existence and he really wants me live by 613 rules and their myriads of Rabbinic permutations, and if he has all the Power in the Universe at his disposal, he might, just might have given us a little bit more open and clear communication of the above before expecting us to comply. Instead, we have an ancient tradition, among many other traditions, with most of the same flaws that we readily admit exists in the other traditions. We have no communication and all we have is 'faith' but the same faith that billions of others around the world have to their Deity/Religion. As Hitchens (I think it was him) put it well: Religious people are atheists regarding every other God but their own!
So even "LeShitascha" that Design proves God, so what? Where does that leave us? We would be left with a God who has not left us any clear instructions - save for the basic inate human morality that most of us intuit. That is a far cry from proving Orthodox Judaism. That would lead us simply to moral Deism at most.
""The only reason I ever believed in God was because my parents told me he exists."
Is that really true? Had you had no input from society on the matter, what do you think your position would be?"
Most people don't believe things because of their parents alone. Most believe things because of society. There clearly is a difference between the political party your parents belonged to and their religion. Religion is a value system. Not many people are going to be neutral about it. And Baal is right there is something to be explained about G-d being the default position in history. Further in terms of priority in religion in history we Jews have it. We started the idea of absolute truth that causes you agonize. Pagans didn't agonize. All religions were true as multiverselike as that sounds. Religious absolutism in any faith makes that faith derived at partially from us. Our history serves as outstanding data to chew on. I noticed something interesting on XGH's site that he says that he looks for motivation in religious statements. The truth is you can have both human motivation and G-d as a source. The Rambam said that some things were done because of the people. That doesn't remove G-d from it. Especially since time isn't anything for G-d. He lives outside of any particular point in spacetime after all. Frankly Lubab No More it seems you just accepted the passing fads without any question. Perhaps that's good for your wife as it makes your positions very difficult to defend.
"Do over! said...
I am coming in late to this discussion, but I will respond to the main early point of contention between Rabban Gamliel and LNM.
LNM says that we don't even have to deal with the issue of God since there is no basis to begin dealing with him that we need to disprove. We only know him from our tradition and that is not a strong enough reality to require disproof in order to reject.
RG responds, with classical Intelligent Design argument; that the working universe either proves or implies a god so therefore we must deal with that hypothesis and in order to reject, we must disprove first (which cannot be done.)"
Sure it could be done as this isn't a strictly scientific discussion so the evidence and judging will not be fully scientific. Altogether if someone says there is a G-d or if someone say there is no G-d he's not making a scientific statement. Dawkins thinks otherwise but with this his opinion is as authoritative as any couch potato.
ID is not something I am really familiar with. I am more familiar with ID's made of plastic that you show to identify yourself.
“RG:
The mistake that you are making in your logic, IMHO, and this is where my thinking is these days (while i used to be a strong ID advocate): your argument is nice and fine, but if God really exists and he really wants me to aknowledge his existence and he really wants me live by 613 rules and their myriads of Rabbinic permutations, and if he has all the Power in the Universe at his disposal, he might, just might have given us a little bit more open and clear communication of the above before expecting us to comply."
Why? I would expect as much as possible to be able to see G-d's communication as being through natural means like through fallible people.
Regarding the uniqueness of Judaism it was the first faith that did say it is the true faith. It is not one amongst many and the concept of absolute truth has Judaism as its source. It’s history has to be reckoned with.
“We would be left with a God who has not left us any clear instructions - save for the basic inate human morality that most of us intuit. “
The concept is innate. The details are not. I'm enjoying the debate thanks.
RG:
1. Why do I think that if God wanted to give me instructions he would have given it through natural means? Duhhh. He gave us five senes with which all other phenomenon, instructions, rules, stories, etc., etc. are received by us, but the most important thing, his existence and his instructions, are NOT conveyed in a CLEAR AND UNAMGIOUS manner? So if you are right and I am wrong, I am more than comfortable with my "Moda'a Rabbah Le'Oraysa" even post "Kimu v'Kibloo" on Purim (v'HaMeivn Yavin.) and I can tell god that it was his fault for not communicating his will more clearly.
This is my main point.
In response to your other points:
1- Read Jonathan Saks "The Dignity of Difference". He comes to the exact OPPOSITE conclusion as you. As for the facts, the Greeks based on Plato most definitely believed in absolute truth. Judaism preached that there is no one way for everyone.
2- Belief in Absolute Truth has not done very well for most groups over the years, so I wouldn't brag about being its originator :)
3- Yes, it is one amongst many ancient traditions, with stories, fables, history, religion, tall tales, morality and superstition. Maybe its the best of the lot. But that doesn't give it any automatic credence in the 21st century.
"Do over! said...
RG:
1. Why do I think that if God wanted to give me instructions he would have given it through natural means? Duhhh. He gave us five senes with which all other phenomenon, instructions, rules, stories, etc., etc. are received by us, but the most important thing, his existence and his instructions, are NOT conveyed in a CLEAR AND UNAMGIOUS manner?"
Hold on His existence is no more unambiguous then other deep ideas that reflection. Is the theory of Relativity less deep because it is not immeadiate to the senses.
"So if you are right and I am wrong, I am more than comfortable with my "Moda'a Rabbah Le'Oraysa" even post "Kimu v'Kibloo" on Purim (v'HaMeivn Yavin.) and I can tell god that it was his fault for not communicating his will more clearly."
If G-d communicates his will it would be only logical it would be through people and human methods.
"1- Read Jonathan Saks "The Dignity of Difference". He comes to the exact OPPOSITE conclusion as you. As for the facts, the Greeks based on Plato most definitely believed in absolute truth."
Not the Greeks as a people.
"Judaism preached that there is no one way for everyone."
What? Judaism says there is one judge over all the Earth.
"2- Belief in Absolute Truth has not done very well for most groups over the years, so I wouldn't brag about being its originator :)"
But you believe in it. You are saying there are some things true and some things not independent of which people you belong to.
"3- Yes, it is one amongst many ancient traditions, with stories, fables, history, religion, tall tales, morality and superstition. Maybe its the best of the lot. But that doesn't give it any automatic credence in the 21st century."
You wouldn't have the 21st century without it and in many ways the 21st has yet to live up to it.
RG:
Let's stick to the main point:
The theory of Relativity was proven with mathemtical equations and scientific proofs in a method that was able to be conveyed to others (via reading his written works or hearing his lectures) in a repeatable and demonstrative format. (e.g. anyone reading it (not intuiting it or prophesizing it) could replicate his equations and follow (or disprove) his proofs.)
So your example is working against you.
Emotions don't come through the five senses either - I don't deny that they exist - but guess what: If you love someone - you make sure that your feelings are conveyed to the other by way of their senses and you don't rely on their 'intuition' to intuit your love. You TELL them that you love them and you... (I'll stop it here to protect the young...)
So again. IF God wants something from me - convey it to me in a clear, unambigious repeatable process.
peace.
>Um...yeah. That's not a valid dilemma though. The two reasonable conclusions is to believe that God does or does not exist, not to pretend that one posesses proof either way.
O.P.
Isn't there third reasonable conclusion? Agnosticism. I really have no idea. There may be , there may not be.
Is
>>>I identify three major beliefs that I think I would require in order to remain a fully practicing and believing Orthodox Jew. They are: 1) belief in God; 2) belief in Torah from Sinai;
The Kuzari answers that (I realize that you probably know about his answer, though I'm not sure why you don't accept it)
>>>3) belief in the faithful preservation of the commandments from Moshe at Sinai.
If you are refering to the chain of transmition from one generation to the next, Seder Hadoros gives a detailed list. If you are refering to the integrety of the peoplke involved, Hayom Yom 6 Shevat states that every rav who wrote a sefer - until the Taz and Shach - did so with ruach hakodesh. I think that in order for them to have ruach hakodesh, they had to be quite holy and honest people.
Do over! said...
RG:
Let's stick to the main point:
The theory of Relativity was proven with mathemtical equations and scientific proofs in a method that was able to be conveyed to others (via reading his written works or hearing his lectures) in a repeatable and demonstrative format. (e.g. anyone reading it (not intuiting it or prophesizing it) could replicate his equations and follow (or disprove) his proofs.)
Einstein himself said:
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.
Albert Einstein
That's the problem with knowledge and negative proofs.
Einstein also said:
My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind.
Not a bad place to start
“Do over! said...
RG:
Let's stick to the main point:
The theory of Relativity was proven with mathemtical equations and scientific proofs in a method that was able to be conveyed to others (via reading his written works or hearing his lectures) in a repeatable and demonstrative format. (e.g. anyone reading it (not intuiting it or prophesizing it) could replicate his equations and follow (or disprove) his proofs.)
So your example is working against you.”
Your argument is working against you. How do you prove the scientific method? Simple you just come up with it. If it makes sense to you for something or everything then it’s proven for you to that extent. And what do you mean by “(e.g. anyone reading it (not intuiting it or prophesizing it) could replicate his equations and follow (or disprove) his proofs.)”
If it’s a true theory it is true even if it is intuited or prophesied about. If scientific theory is true it’s only true because it can be intuited. Otherwise how do we examine its truth scientifically?
The whole topic of G-d's existence or nonexistence is not strictly scientific. Also science doesn't prove anything in the sense of no more experiments for confirmation necessary. Rather we become convinced or we just keep on questioning. The scientific method as presented is an ideal but doesn't tell you enough. Your gut helps. Einstein believed in his theory because he felt it to be true in his guts. The experiments he felt to be already enough proof from before the theory was promulgated. He didn't present his theory as a hypothesis. He presented as his theory, as the facts as he saw it. Similarly he denied the truth of Quantum theory because he felt the experiments were obscuring what he felt in his bones to be the real truth. This type of behavior is what produces differences of opinion amongst scientists and changes in the scientific community in opinion. Science is not data. Science explains data. There is no shortcut to arguing a case. Of course since science needs data a scientist will not argue a case that can't be connected with data.
Blind chance can produce chaos and bland stateliness. The contribution of science is to see logic in the data so that things happen because they make sense to happen such that you can predict the future. If all you have is data there is nothing brilliant in scientific theories. A scientist sees the data and tries to penetrate behind it. Sometimes the data taken at face value lies. The data taken at face value tells you the world is Newtonian but taken more deeply it tells you that it is really Relativistic and Quantum Mechanical. The Newtonian world is just what you see in the Nonatomic and Subatomic world when compared with light's velocity you aren't traveling.
“Emotions don't come through the five senses either - I don't deny that they exist - but guess what: If you love someone - you make sure that your feelings are conveyed to the other by way of their senses and you don't rely on their 'intuition' to intuit your love. You TELL them that you love them and you... (I'll stop it here to protect the young...)”
On the contrary in order to demonstrate that we really are seeing love we use our intuition. If we don’t use intuition why are there differences of opinion. How do evaluate the truth of anything without intuition and people do lie. But why do you believe in emotions? If you did not have them in your experience you would not know them from someone else. There are no experiments in which we see emotions having a real existence. What makes the five senses so more true as instruments for confirming truth? We still use our intuition to make sense of the data we get from our five senses. Intuition based on what? If all you have is the five senses to rely on how can we rely on our logic? What makes our emotions not something to tell us anything about when we all use them to come up with truth and logic? The five senses help for science because they are on the most gross level repeatable but the conclusions from them involve more and surely if we rely on other sources to explain the data of the five senses the other sources too must be reliable. Why draw the line at explaining the data of the five senses? It is our intuition that altogether even tells us what to make of what our five senses say.
“So again. IF God wants something from me - convey it to me in a clear, unambigious repeatable process.
peace.”
But if G-d conveys something that we heard about through people are we really to say that people have no hand in it as the instrument?
"Baal Habos said...
>Um...yeah. That's not a valid dilemma though. The two reasonable conclusions is to believe that God does or does not exist, not to pretend that one posesses proof either way.
O.P.
Isn't there third reasonable conclusion? Agnosticism. I really have no idea. There may be , there may not be.
Is"
That's saying that the mind is too dumb to come up with the answer. If the mind is too dumb you can believe anything after all as reality doesn’t need to make sense. If there is an answer and there certainly is shouldn't it make sense one way or the other? Isn't the point of rationality to say there is logic to reality? If such is the case we can if only we would be smart enough come up with the answer. Agnosticism isn’t an answer. It’s only saying everyone is too stupid for it but there’s no evidence that the human mind is too stupid for the answer. There is no reason to think it is too stupid for it. We may be too stupid to grasp a G-d beyond our dimensions in time and space but we can grasp a part just as in relativity theory we cannot grasp the higher dimensions but we experience their affects. I find it amazing that I am arguing for a rational universe and so many atheists and agnostics are the ones arguing for an irrational one at base. Just see where the data leads they say. To them anything can make sense if the data would lead there on the surface level. My what faith! I don’t as much in my supply.
Woops I wrote "The Newtonian world is just what you see in the Nonatomic and Subatomic world when compared with light's velocity you aren't traveling."
I meant to write:The Newtonian world is just what you see in the Nonatomic and NonSubatomic world when compared with light's velocity you aren't traveling.
Rabban Gamliel,
Your last post could have been written by Steven Colbert.
Here's a great quote of his:
"That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. I know some of you are going to say "I did look it up, and that's not true." That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works."
Make that second to last post.
"Lubab No More said...
Rabban Gamliel,
Your last post could have been written by Steven Colbert.
Here's a great quote of his:
"That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you have in your head? You can look it up. I know some of you are going to say "I did look it up, and that's not true." That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut. I did. My gut tells me that's how our nervous system works.""
LOL actually science says that that's how we decide things. Welcome to the Gut Club my skeptic friend.
> Welcome to the Gut Club my skeptic friend.
My gut tells me the Torah was written by man. That doesn't make me correct. Same for god.
"Lubab No More said...
> Welcome to the Gut Club my skeptic friend.
My gut tells me the Torah was written by man. That doesn't make me correct. Same for god."
That's not what I mean by gut. I mean the kind of intuition that made Einstein come up with his General Theory of Relativity when there was hardly any evidence.
Rabban Gamliel said...
"Lubab No More said...
> Welcome to the Gut Club my skeptic friend.
My gut tells me the Torah was written by man. That doesn't make me correct. Same for god."
How do you see if you are right? You use your informed feelings ideally. If you don't what basis do you have for deciding what's true when others say otherwise? It's your feelings against them. If we are too stupid to know anything why are we talking?
Rabban Gamliel,
>How do you see if you are right? You use your informed feelings ideally.
No. Ideally I design an experiment that can prove or disprove my theory and I design that experiment so that it isn't biased toward either conclusion despite what I feel in my gut.
> If we are too stupid to know anything why are we talking?
I don't believe in that argument. I leave that approach to the believers who say "We can't understand God! Don't ask so many questions!!!"
Baal,
"Isn't there third reasonable conclusion? Agnosticism. I really have no idea. There may be , there may not be."
Every belief held without conclusive data is an agnostic belief. But if it's an idea that is important in your life and it effects how you think and act then you really cannot sit on the fence indefinitely.
In truth, as I said, to not make a decision is to effectively make a decision. You really only have the two options.
"Lubab No More said...
Rabban Gamliel,
>How do you see if you are right? You use your informed feelings ideally.
No. Ideally I design an experiment that can prove or disprove my theory and I design that experiment so that it isn't biased toward either conclusion despite what I feel in my gut."
Of course that's what you should do if there is an experiment for it. There's no experiment for G-d so you are not following your own advice in saying He for sure doesn't exist. As far as your gut you have to try to make your gut objective. How are you to decide what is true or not based on experiment without devising a method of judging what you are to conclude from the experiment? Further in science you never prove anything. If new evidence comes up a theory could be overturned. The scientific community proving something is a statement that is only true if you believe it to be a true statement. That's how scientists overturn scientific consensus by challenging it. You have provided no methodology to arrive at the truth of a theory. You have experiments. Good now what? You don't say.
> If we are too stupid to know anything why are we talking?
I don't believe in that argument. I leave that approach to the believers who say "We can't understand God! Don't ask so many questions!!!"
I don’t say that. In any event I was addressing Baal not you. Why the strawman. If your so objective why do you accept blindly every skeptic position you encounter? What really happened with you?
Rabban Gamliel,
>If your so objective why do you accept blindly every skeptic position you encounter?
When did I say anything about blindly accepting skeptic positions? And why do you say I accept every skeptic position I encounter? Why would you make these ridiculous statements?
> What really happened with you?
Is this a variation on the position that atheism a sign of mental illness? I got a similar response for a Rabbi I spoke to about my atheism. I lost some respect for him once he said it. Nothing extraordinary has "happened" to me.
"Lubab No More said...
Rabban Gamliel,
>If your so objective why do you accept blindly every skeptic position you encounter?
When did I say anything about blindly accepting skeptic positions? And why do you say I accept every skeptic position I encounter? Why would you make these ridiculous statements?"
Because all your positions I've encountered leave no room for any nonskeptiv viewpoint.
"> What really happened with you?
Is this a variation on the position that atheism a sign of mental illness?"
No
" I got a similar response for a Rabbi I spoke to about my atheism. I lost some respect for him once he said it. Nothing extraordinary has "happened" to me."
I'm glad to hear you spoke to the Rabbi about it. Why couldn't you do it with your wife then?
Low blow, Gamliel. You shame the name.
"Benjamin said...
Low blow, Gamliel. You shame the name."
What blow? I was asking a question not criticizing. Lubab No More wants our help.
Post a Comment