Here is some Friday video for ya. After Julia Sweeney's run of "
God Said, Ha!" she made a follow-up act called "Letting Go of God." Below is a video excerpt of one of her programs. In it she tells a funny story about an encounter she had with some Mormon missionaries. Her experience with the Mormons and their extraordinary story made her question the extraordinary stories she believed as a Catholic. I found it similar to my experience of being open to questioning MO Judaism after having questioned Lubavitch. (The Mormon story starts at 7:37)
Funny stuff. Enjoy!
Update:
---------
More of this story can be heard in a "This American Life" program called "
Godless America." Julia picks up where the video stops at 36:10. In this episode she tells the story I mentioned in the last post where she meets with her priest and discusses her doubts.
http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=290
14 comments:
Interesting video.
I like thought experiments. Maybe its from my Talmudic training, which takes theoretical arguments to the limit. Or from my science background.
Consider the following:
Imagine that you, LNM, finally discovered the "killer" argument/proof of no god and that Judaism is false. The kind of argument that convinces any rational person beyond a doubt, say like Copernicus proving that the earth goes around the sun.
What would you do with it? Would you "use" it on you family, friends, congregants? Would you shout it from the rooftops? Would you use it on Jews to get them to abandon their faith?
I wouldn't mind using it on Cheradim, but otherwise, I'm not sure what I would do. I'm not sure that I would want Judaism as a faith to disappear.
I throw this out for all you to comment.
Regarding the "burden of proof":
We live in an age of reason. All knowledge in the past several hundred years has been gained using the scientific method of inquiry. It simply works better than any other way we know of to gain knowledge. This means that when trying to answer a question, you posit a theory, than try to prove it. Sometimes you set the opposite as a "null" hypotheses and try to disprove that.
In the case of God, God is a theory of explaining the creation and running of the world. It has not been proven, neither has it been disproven.
Atheism is not a theory, it is simply the rejection of the theory of God based on lack of evidence. Atheist don't "believe", therefore they don't have to prove their "belief".
This is no different than, in my view, as a physician, in that I don't accept homeopathic medicine or quartz therapy as true, despite many people's belief that they work. I don't have to prove the "non-existence" of homeopathy, I simply reject it because repeated attempts to prove its claims have failed.
Similarly, attempts to prove the god theory (like the Zeus theory or Rusell's teapot theory) of the world fail any scientific testing. (or they are conveniently not accessible to testing) On the other hand, alternative theories-- evolution, neurobiology, etc, definitely stand up to scientific testing.
"In the case of God, God is a theory of explaining the creation and running of the world. It has not been proven, neither has it been disproven.
Atheism is not a theory, it is simply the rejection of the theory of God based on lack of evidence. Atheist don't "believe", therefore they don't have to prove their "belief"."
But since G-d is not something that can by definition be proven by science you can't argue that the way to prove or disprove Him is through science especially since one can see hints leading to G-d from science. Science can be useful outside of it's field to help out even in fields in which it doesn't strictly apply. This is how Atheists and Theists are able to use it for their nonscientific purposes but science itself was built not to answer any questions beyond what we can infer with our five senses through experiment.
"homeopathic medicine or quartz therapy as true, despite many people's belief that they work. I don't have to prove the "non-existence" of homeopathy, I simply reject it because repeated attempts to prove its claims have failed."
It's more than that for science. Not being able to prove something is not in science proving something. It is that it has been shown to be false. If a medical treatment consistently doesn't work it is falsified since the theory was that it should work. You can investigate claims that under certain circumstances there may be something still to it but the basic claim has been then overthrown. Since in medicine the lack of working is what is being tested the analogy to other fields of science isn’t perfect.
Julia Sweeney is the first person who I thought would grok my story. I'd been convinced by the arguments of atheists, but hers was the first story I heard about that paralleled my own. I've since heard many stories and found many kindred spirits among the deconverted.
LNM, thanks for posting her stuff. I hadn't known about her brush with cancer.
I don't understand Julia Sweeney's struggle. I didn't watch the continuation where she talks about her meeting with her priest (there's only so much of her that I can stand), but if she is thrown by the "age of reason" thing, that's because she's applying men's logic to God. Judaism's "age of reason" is 12 or 13. So if you believe that God knows your heart and you believe that God is capable of perfect justice, don't you think that an 11-year-old who commits a heinous murder with intent will be punished severely by God? Men need limits and laws and instructions on how to deal with things justly, but God doesn't. Does she really think God is that small?
I don't get her. I don't understand her struggle.
WHO CARES!!!!!!!!!!!!
RG said:
"But since G-d is not something that can by definition be proven by science you can't argue that the way to prove or disprove Him is through science "
By whose definition?
If religion/god makes very specific claims about this physical world, why shouldn't they be subject to scientific inquiry? Since the scientific method has only been around for several hundred years, how could religion claim that science doesn't work on it when science didn't even exist in the advent of religion?
Remember that until science told us of bacteria and neurobiology, religion thought that disease originated from evil spirits or snakes poisoning the drinking water. So what about religions other claims? Why shouldn't they proven or disproven by science?
"If a medical treatment consistently doesn't work it is falsified since the theory was that it should work."
But this doesn't stop people from believing in it...
I love your blog. I love all these comments. Both are so different from the rest of my blogosphere. I've been lurking for awhile and just decided to link to you because I was raised Orthodox and no longer "practice." Long story. Check out my short story called "Sanctuary" on my blog. It gets to the heart of the matter.
"DrJ said...
RG said:
"But since G-d is not something that can by definition be proven by science you can't argue that the way to prove or disprove Him is through science "
By whose definition?
Science's. Science doesn't strictly speaking deal with
anything beyond the repeatable things we can detect with our senses.
"If religion/god makes very specific claims about this physical world, why shouldn't they be subject to scientific inquiry? Since the scientific method has only been around for several hundred years, how could religion claim that science doesn't work on it when science didn't even exist in the advent of religion?"
G-d is not a specific claim detectable by instruments. In Judaism He works through nature but He Himself is above it. As for religion it can make specific claims that are testable if one accepts scientific testing as valid for it but in Orthodox Judaism not everyone believes that a choice must be made, but rather that there are different contexts.
"Remember that until science told us of bacteria and neurobiology, religion thought that disease originated from evil spirits or snakes poisoning the drinking water. So what about religions other claims? Why shouldn't they proven or disproven by science?"
Because if a religion is not dogmatic enough it can be more flexible so as to leave no room for a conflict between religion and science.
the individual voice,
Thanks for the kind words. I'm flattered. I'll have to check out your blog. Thanks for the add!
LNM,
The site from where you took that video has lots of other fascinating videos and lectures.
www.ted.com-- check it out!
Thanks for the tip!
Nothing personal but this was the most unfunny thing I've attempted to listen to in years. They always said women don't know comedy - this proves it. Even her style appears to be too literary for stand up "I turned dramatically around at the top of the stairs.." You'll have to forgive me but I only listened to 5 mintues...that's all I could take.
Does it actually get better or at least marginally orginal?
Funny and thought provoking. Thanks for the link.
Post a Comment