The video store was a mess. I walked to the Action section and found shelves and shelves of DVDs piled in short stacks. The "S" section looked like it was hit by a tornado. I tried finding "Serenity" alphabetically. That strategy was a waste of time. So, I restricted my search to the shelf above and below where it should have been. Still no dice. I next systematically worked my way back through "S". "S.W.A.T.", "Starship Troopers", "STEALTH", "The Terminator." My obsessive compulsiveness kicked in when I saw "The Terminator" under "S". I picked it up and placed it one shelf over in "T". I continued. "Star Wars: Episode V", "Star Wars: Episode I", "Star Trek: Nemisis", "Star Wars: Episode II". Now the disarray was just bothering me and my compulsion kicked into high gear. I started rearranging the DVDs. "Episode II", "Episode III", "Episode IV", Combine all "Superman: The Movie" DVDs into one pile. Take "Stargate" and move it next to Sta-- [THUNK, Thunk, thunk, thunk, thunk] Being the klutz I am I knocked a stack of DVDs off the shelf and onto the floor. As the dust settled a Blockbuster employee walked toward me carrying a tower of DVD cases. I thought to myself "You've done enough damage for one day. Quit wasting time." I turned to the employee and asked her if they carry "Serenity". "Yeah, I think so," she replied "It should be right around here" and she turned to the shelf I was just wasting time on. I looked again at the shelf and before she said another word I saw "Serenity" right in front of me. It was wedged in the middle of a stack between "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" and "Sahara". I pulled it off the shelf and quoted the New Testament to her "Ask, and ye shall receive." She half laughed then made the tight smile you make when you want to be polite but don't really want to talk to someone. I quickly walked to the register.OK, so I didn't ask Jesus to give me "Serenity" (the movie) but what if I had? I might have given The Son credit for helping me find the disk I was looking for. Why would this be any different from running into an old friend at the Koysel (Kotel) and saying the meeting was god's will? It seems to me that in both situations we are inserting god where he may or may not be involved. What do you think?
29 comments:
For one thing, if you believe in G-d's existence and don't believe in Jesus's (or at least, his power to do anything at this point), then the former doing things may be unlikely, but the latter is impossible. So no matter how small the chance that G-d is orchestrating your random-friend meetings, I personally believe that the chance that Jesus is doing it is even less likely.
As to the chance of the former happening- I tend to think it's pretty small, but hey, if it's morally useful to believe, why not? There's little cost (maybe even benefit) to a false positive, and there might be cost from a miss.
On a separate note, Serenity! Yay!
"As to the chance of the former happening- I tend to think it's pretty small, but hey, if it's morally useful to believe, why not?"
I think that this raises the larger question in Judaism and other religions, of whether we should believe in something, however unreasonable, given that it is useful. Isn't this what propaganda is? We make people believe in things, however false, because of their utility.
Although your example is perfectly harmless, the same "moral" approach towards discovering factual reality, adopted in a systematic way, is very dangerous in my view.
Actually this is what the Talmud and rabbinic interpretation of Judaism is all about-- not about testing and fact finding-- but on accepting authority and molding people into compliancy.
I think whatever you believe in may work, whether it's Jesus, voodoo or whatever. See Deut. 13:3. The idolatrous prophet may also perform miracles.
In my blog, you won't find too many posts saying "This morning, I prayed to find a parking space, I found one, so that proves that Judaism is true." Although that type of thing does actually happen a lot to me.
By the way, join Netflix.
what happend to abandonng eden?
I Love Firefly, Serenetiy and Josh Wheedon shows!!
My husband actually bought one of Simon's outfits through an online Firefly auction and wore it last Purim!
A fan of your blog too! Thanks!
Serendipity is actually quite likely. Consider the famous birthday problem in probability. With 23 random people in a room, there is a greater than 50% of at least one pair having the same birthday. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_paradox)
Psychologically we tend to overemphasize recent and fortuitous experiences, but if you think about it, there are a lot more NONCOINCIDENCES that we experince every day, which we don't think about. If when going shopping we DON'T meet a particular friend or find a particular object, we wouldn't tend to think about it much or even notice it.
When people report personal "miracles", there ignoring the "anti-miracles" of the people around them who weren't as lucky, or the other times when they themselves weren't so lucky.
Maybe its good and healthy to recognize when something lucky and fortunate happens to us and feel grateful, but attributing meaning as a "miracle" makes no logical sense.
Doesn't believing in miracles (not serendipity), past or present, from whichever god, essentially render invalid the whole scientific method? If the rules of probability and physics can be violated, willy-nilly, than how can we trust any experiment that we do? The validity of any experimental conclusion has the rug pulled from beneath it; one could always claim that the natural laws were violated, therefore the conclusions aren't valid.
The Bible and Talmud are full of wild claims of supernatural events. Any rational person who accepts reason must interpret these stories as metaphors, nothing more.
You are forced to make a choice.
Entrust your understanding of our universe to (1)the cumulative process of asking questions, reason, testing, and measurement or (2)unquestioningly accepting the sayings of so-called wise men who lived long ago and from ancient books.
I'll definitely go with the former!!
"Doesn't believing in miracles (not serendipity), past or present, from whichever god, essentially render invalid the whole scientific method?"
What about believing in free will? Or are we all merely robots?
Drj;
I will play the devil's advocate with you; Why can we not say that measurements, scientific theories and physical law are describptions of "usual" phenomena, whereas miracles are rare departures from laws of physics, occuring at the behest of a supernatural being?
"Doesn't believing in miracles (not serendipity), past or present, from whichever god, essentially render invalid the whole scientific method? If the rules of probability and physics can be violated, willy-nilly, than how can we trust any experiment that we do?"
Science deals with the reproducible. If something is not repeatable it's not science.
Sorry for my long-winded response..
BadRabbi,
There's still a problem because since we never know when that supernatural being will decide to depart from His laws, we can't rely on science. For example, when we attempt to use carbon dating to measure age, the creationists will claim that God worked a miracle and made newly created creatures look old. There are many such examples. Although its true that fundamentalists don't often claim modern day miracles (its pretty hard nowadays with video and all), the assertion of supernatural deviation from natural law (as recently as the Maharal's Golem)undercuts archeology, paleontology, neurobiology, genetics, and a wide variety of other sciences.
JP,
I don't know how YOU define free will, but for me it is exerting my will free from coercion from other people, and using my reason and desires to determine my actions.
It is true that neurobiologists argue about whether or not we are actually "free" to decide or whether it is just an illusion and predetermined. In any case our choices are influenced by some combination of our genetic makeup & environment and a smattering of randomness. Within the limits of mental health, at an experiencial level and as a practical matter we are in charge and take responsibility for our actions.
RG,
You are right in that if someone makes an experimental claim that cannot be reproduced by another experimenter, the claim is suspect (although you are STILL dealing with SCIENCE). But by saying a priori that a miracle is not reproducible and therefore not accessible to science, you are dodging the problem, not answering it. You are defining science too narrowly. The scientific method applies to non-physical sciences, such as sociology, history, psychology. What about the big bang, or World War 2? Nobody is going to repeat that, although some of the individual component reactions might be reproducible. Since miracles are actual physical events they are subject to scientific scrutiny as well.
"we are in charge and take responsibility for our actions."
Are robots responsible? And if we truly have free will then what happens to science?
The truth is that outside of chemistry and physics, nothing is predictable but science continues. I don't see why miracles should bother anyone.
I am new to this blog, and am struck by how so much of the religious debate here is focused on tedious Logic, which (correct me if I'm wrong), I suspect is a Talmudic approach to religion when in fact I think most people's experience of faith and belief is based on emotion. Am I missing something here?
Anybody ever notice that claims of so called miracles are relegated either to the distant past, or to the future (resurrection, messiah, etc), when they cannot be verified?
Kind of convenient that miracles nowadays don't occur...
"You are right in that if someone makes an experimental claim that cannot be reproduced by another experimenter, the claim is suspect (although you are STILL dealing with SCIENCE)."
If it's not reproducible it's unexplained. Science is by defintion an explanation used for prediction but an explanation.
"But by saying a priori that a miracle is not reproducible and therefore not accessible to science, you are dodging the problem, not answering it."
No I am just defining an area outside of science. It puts science on a weak footing to deny it power if we should see a miracle. You simply can't guarantee you will see the sun tommorow even if by all that is logical we should.
There's no way we can prove a miracle can't happen so it is a weak foundation to make its denial the foundation of science.
"the individual voice said...
I am new to this blog, and am struck by how so much of the religious debate here is focused on tedious Logic, which (correct me if I'm wrong), I suspect is a Talmudic approach to religion when in fact I think most people's experience of faith and belief is based on emotion. Am I missing something here?"
No not really but not everyone goes for the bottom line.
Oh come on!!
This is like the old joke about the man who is late for work searching desperately for a parking space.
Knowing that if he is late for work once again he will be fired, as a last resort he prays to G-d.
"G-d - please. I know I haven't been religious but if you help me out this once to find a parking space I will follow all your mitzvot and will donate $10,000 to charity.
A space immediately opens.
"Never mind. I found one myself."
Ah, but I know that I am choosing to believe in something that may or may not be true. The only person I'm fooling is myself, and that is a reasoned decision.
Tobie,
For me, there was a heavy price in believing in God. I am much happier now that I've stopped paying that price.
I also wonder if publicly believing in God even though you may be fooling yourself as you said, may in fact harm others by giving them comfort for their own mistaken beliefs. They see you acting as a believer would and it helps them to also believe. Wouldn't this constitute fooling other people?
I don't understand people who believe one thing and act another for the sake of appearances. It lacks integrity. It's what we used to call in high school "a phoney." How do you live with yourself? When I stopped believing I had to go through a long painful process of "coming out" to everyone, like a gay person does, to maintain my own self-respect. I also don't understand deliberate self-delusion, though I realize many "religious" people "practice" it for the sake of coping, fitting in, whatever. I guess that is less hypocritical but sadder, not being true to yourself in either case.
"Rabban Gamliel said...
There's no way we can prove a miracle can't happen so it is a weak foundation to make its denial the foundation of science."
The fact is in science you always repeat experiments. A truly unrepeatable event is called the unexplained not science. Of course some things can't be repeated but the experiments by which we infer such things should be or else is not science.
"DrJ said...
Anybody ever notice that claims of so called miracles are relegated either to the distant past, or to the future (resurrection, messiah, etc), when they cannot be verified?
Kind of convenient that miracles nowadays don't occur..."
What's your email address?
RG,
You can write me at jshames at yahoo dot com
(I write it out to avoid bots)
"Anybody ever notice that claims of so called miracles are relegated either to the distant past, or to the future (resurrection, messiah, etc),"
DRJ, if manna would fall from heaven each morning today, what would you say? "That's nature. We don't understand it yet, but surely someday science will."
"DrJ said...
RG,
You can write me at jshames at yahoo dot com
(I write it out to avoid bots)"
Ok I gave you a forward.
Gosh, it's impossible to get a word in edgewise with you guys. I'm clearly on the wrong track here, a parallel universe. Miracles, shmiracles. You believe in them or you don't or, what I don't understand at all and am trying to make a point about, you PRETEND to believe in them or SELF-DELUDE yourself to believe in them. Why would anyone want to live their life that way, pretending?
JB- I wasn't referring to pretended belief in G-d. I was referring to pretending that certain coincidences are related to Divine intervention rather than random chance. People rarely use such cases to do anything except inspire them to do what they anyway believe is right or confirm their current beliefs, so I'm not sure what price it might have.
I misunderstood what you said. It doesn't seem to change the problem materially. If someone is propping up their beliefs with coincidences then they are apt to fall prey to confirmation bias. Holding false beliefs because of faulty reasoning can have a price, especially when those beliefs involve membership in a religious group which has high standards for behavior.
Believing in skepticism, I think we should seek to expose our beliefs to the full weight of the evidence, not buffered by weak reasoning.
"the individual voice said...
Gosh, it's impossible to get a word in edgewise with you guys. I'm clearly on the wrong track here, a parallel universe. Miracles, shmiracles. You believe in them or you don't or, what I don't understand at all and am trying to make a point about, you PRETEND to believe in them or SELF-DELUDE yourself to believe in them. Why would anyone want to live their life that way, pretending?"
You can't prove there's no miracles. You can only make such a statement on faith and could be shown wrong. What's your email address?
Post a Comment