Tuesday, February 15, 2011

A Rational Approach To The Divine Origin Of Judaism



An interesting lecture by Lawrence Kelemen.

56 comments:

NC said...

I've listened to this lecture before. I'll admit its quite entertaining, and what he says could be the basis of rational belief. However, when I researched the various claims, I found that the "proofs" fall apart.

For example the Applewhite theorem. This is one basis of the Kuzari argument. The theorem itself is demonstrable false, as evidenced by the many existing false beliefs that are themselves checkable. For example, millions of people believe in homeopathy and that vaccines are dangerous, or that fouridated water is poisonous, despite the fact that these beliefs are eminently testable and demonstrably false. The people who believe these things live their lives by them, endanger their children and the people around them by refusing to vaccinate their kids, and simply ignore the abundant evidence that they are wrong. So people DO believe anything, even if it is checkable. Granted, it is easier to start a hoax if it is not checkable.

Second, the Sinai story, presented to people hundreds of years later but in ancient times, was NOT CHECKABLE.

So on two counts this proof fails.

His statistical "proof" is also fallacious. Natural events tend to recur but not always, so the lack of repetition is not proof of something not being natural. The Stone Age occurred only once. So did the Dinosaur era. Does that mean it was not natural? It was It was part of a class of events, and so was the advent of the Hebrew religion. It was part of the flow of history. Uniqueness does not imply supernatural.

jewish philosopher said...

I think that Kelemen makes a couple of good points:

First of all, if it was possible to fabricate a mass revelation myth, why aren't there several more examples of it? Why does every other religion go the private revelation route, which is obviously more flimsy?

Secondly, if one person, such as Ezra, fabricated the Torah, claiming it to be a long lost document, his position in Jewish history should be huge, however it isn't.

NC said...

" if it was possible to fabricate a mass revelation myth, why aren't there several more examples of it?"

1. Why should they? A little theory of mind, please. It is only you that is saying that it is a "better" claim, not others. From their perspective their own claim isn't flimsy at all. In fact, since their religion spread more successfully than Judaism, what reason would they have to think their claim is "flimsy"? It's better! Maybe that's why their religion was successful are ours wasn't, in terms of conquering the world. Perhaps that's why it occurred only once-- when people saw that it didn't work so well.

2. Nobody says that Ezra fabricated it out of thin air. The DH proposes that he assembled various existing proto-texts and oral traditions and reconciled them. Presumably the stories in these proto-texts were already familiar to many. So he would not be seen as the founder of the religion.
Whether the position of a particular character is "huge" would be dependent on many factors, and I don't know how that would be quantified.

You have to imagine the ancient world. The weren't ministries of religions popping up, meeting and trying to figure out how to start the best religion. They began spontaneously and developed, as a function of the social, intellectual and cultural environment of the time. So I wouldn't expect ancient man to say, "gee, I want to start a religion, what's the best way? Hmm, how bout the mass revelation route? Or should we invent a prophet or idol-god?"

jewish philosopher said...

"Why should they?"

In any court of law, all else being equal, multiple witnesses carry more weight than a single witness for obvious reasons.

" Nobody says that Ezra fabricated it out of thin air."

Nor of course did Jesus or Mohammed, however they are still immensely revered as being the founders. Logically, Ezra or Kelemen's facetious "Fred" should be as well.

Just by the way, regarding your earlier comment, the stone age has arguably happened many times, neolithic cultures have existed in many times and places. Also regarding the dinosaurs, the later wooly mammoths and other megafauna were similar.

Anonymous said...

NC:

The people who believe in homepoathy claim that they have evidence that it does work. Same thing with water flouridation and vaccines. There was even an article publiahed in the peer reviewed Lancet that linked vaccines to autism.

And, IMHO, anyone who founded a religion and wanted to really strengthen their claim to a revelation, e.g. Jesus or Mohammed, wouid claim a National revelation if anyone would believe it.

nc said...

JP:
"similar" or "different" depend on which property you emphasize. Is a frog more like a blade of grass or a bird?

So even describing the mass revelation claim as unique is just an arbitrary choice of which aspect you're looking at.

So uniqueness proves nothing. Like the pyramids.

jewish philosopher said...

I'm not sure that these arguments are as bullet proof as some of the ones I make, however different people may be more impressed by different things.

Anonymous said...

NC:

Some difference are significant. The Mass Revelation at Sinai is significantly different that all the other revelation because it is falsifiable, and would have been falsified if it was, in fact false.

Baal Habos said...

> if it was possible to fabricate a mass revelation myth, why aren't there several more examples of it?"

Would one more suffice to disprove your argument?

Baal Habos said...

>The Mass Revelation at Sinai is significantly different that all the other revelation because it is falsifiable, and would have been falsified if it was, in fact false.

Many parts of it HAVE been falsified. It's just that you don't believe it's been falsified, because, err, well you claim it's non-falsifiable.

Just imagine: without the Kuzari, you would probably readily admit that it's been falsified just like Christianity. So you RELY on the KP to convince you that it has not been falsified; when it has.

NC said...

JP:

True. I must confess that for a while I was moved by his arguments. He is intelligent and persuasive (and funny). But from a scientific/historical perspective his arguments aren't really convincing.

I would be happy if you pointed me to just one of your "bullet-proof" arguments:)

Shalmo said...

JP:

"First of all, if it was possible to fabricate a mass revelation myth, why aren't there several more examples of it? Why does every other religion go the private revelation route, which is obviously more flimsy?"

There indeed are several examples of it. In fact mass revelation myths are actually more common than singular founders. Judaism would be the oddity because its one of the few religions with a singular founder, Moses.

For the billionth time almost all hindu deities reveal themselves through mass revelation. Most of which predate Judaism. There even are hindu monotheistic religion that begin by mass revelation

"Secondly, if one person, such as Ezra, fabricated the Torah, claiming it to be a long lost document, his position in Jewish history should be huge, however it isn't."

1. The Tanakh indeed gives him a huge position. He is hailed as a new Moses. His geneology is listed precisely to show his reverance.

2. You actually shot yourself in the foot with this train of thought, because this is exactly what Josiah did.

Read 2 kings ch. 22 - Josiah claimed he supposedly found a lost of the Torah, Deutoronomy and then used that to initiate his reforms of the israelite religion, creating one temple for one national god to consolodate all power in the kingdom similar to how Constantine created a singular christianity to unite the Roman empire.

jewish philosopher said...

Here are my arguments for Judaism; note that I give details of how to falsify them.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2006/12/truth-of-judaism.html

On the other hand, evolution is based on the argument that "if there is no God, where else did we come from"? And there is no God because "since we know evolution created us, there is no proof of God". Brilliant.

NC said...

"On the other hand, evolution is based on the argument that "if there is no God, where else did we come from"? "

TRUE. ALL science assumes no god, not just evolution; otherwise it wouldn't be science. How else could we study things if the supernatural could intervene in natural processes? We could never rely on induction.

"And there is no God because "since we know evolution created us, there is no proof of God". Brilliant."

FALSE. Evolution disproves god no more than gravity or relativity. It does, however, disprove the literal interpretation of the Bible.

There are many potential arguments against the existence of god. Evolution is not one of them.

jewish philosopher said...

In that case you'll have to explain why all scientists prior to 1859 vehemently supported intelligent design and special creation.

http://www.nytimes.com/1860/03/28/news/origin-species-origin-species-means-natural-selection-preservation-favored-races.html

Or maybe there was no science prior to Darwin?

NC said...

"In that case you'll have to explain why all scientists prior to 1859 vehemently supported intelligent design and special creation."

Hello! Science has changed a tad in the past 150 years!

Creation is theology, not science. That scientists before Darwin believed in the Bible (as many do now) has nothing to do with scientific methodology. The scientific method assumes consistency, natural but not the supernatural, and inductive reasoning. All of that would be impossible if we always wondered whether the results of our measurements were because of the laws of nature or from a miracle.

I'll clarify. Let me ask this:

Is the claim that god put dinosaur bones on earth to make it look old-- is that a theological claim or a scientific one?

jewish philosopher said...

Prior to 1859, creationism was accepted by all scientists as being science. And science has changed a lot since then; in fact it's now nearly dead.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/01/rebellion-in-classroom.html

"Is the claim that god put dinosaur bones on earth to make it look old-- is that a theological claim or a scientific one?"

I think it's just a silly claim.

Anonymous said...

BaaL Habos:

The Mass Revelation is falsifiable. That's what I was talking about. Thje other revelations are not falsifiable. I never said they whee falsified. Now, I don't know of any parts of the Torah that are falsifiable, that have in fact been falsified. If you want to bring uo the age of the Earth, there is plenty of evidence within the Torah canon for an old Earth. And, evolution, well, you know the response.

Anonymous said...

NC:

The claim that G-d wouldn't create vestigal organs, or wouldn't arrainge life in a netsed hierarchy, etc., etc, which are sited as proof of evolution, are theological claims, yet they aresited as evidence for evolution.

Anonymous said...

Awesome post. Do you mind if I ask what your source is for this information?

Anonymous said...

JP, please tell your anal bead, "Nathan" to refrain from posting until he at least identifies himself, but preferably, until he gets a blogger profile so he is not "Anonymous." That is, assuming that "Nathan" actually exists outside of your imagination.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 3:29


If you can tell that I'm Nathan, why is there a problem? And its always been my experience that people resort to name calling when they have nothing else to say.
I don't have a blogger pofile because I have a very full productive life outside of blogging, so I don't really have the time or interest for a blogger profile. And aren't you anonymous?

Nathan

NC said...

Having a layperson debate based on internet quote mining about evolution is not science, its just amateurish rhetoric. It is every bit like debating tectonic plate theory or the usefulness of chemotherapy for cancer, by hurling quotes and links from popular forums.

By denying evolution, you become a proud member of believers in conspiracy theories. Those conniving lying scientists! You join the believers in:

1. The Holocaust was a Zionist hoax
2. Vaccines are a mercury poisoning scam and cause autism
3. Water fluoridation is just a way for big companies to get rid of their industrial waste
4. The WTC bombings were plots by Jews, the CIA, etc
5. The earth is really flat
6. The Zionists control the world

I can prove every one of the above claims using internet links and quotes as you do.

Your claim about scientists plotting to foist evolution upon the public, intentionally perpetuating a lie in order to increase their own power, and suppressing all dissenting opinions, has all of the hallmarks of a classic pseudoscience conspiracy theory.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-conspiracy-theory-director&print=true

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pseudoscience

The reason that you must claim this conspiracy, is that otherwise, you have to rely on the authority of experts for things you don't understand or can't really research yourself. Therefore you come up with pseudoscientific claims about evolutionary junk and mass revelations, while engaging in a lame attempt to discredit science.

jewish philosopher said...

Why do you reject Christianity? Do you have a doctorate in Christian theology? So what do you actually know about it? A couple of popular books, a few Internet posts? And how can a billion Christians, including countless clergy, all be lying? Are you suggesting a massive, global, 2,000 year old conspiracy?

You're no different than some Iranian holocaust denier.

The fact is of course that regardless of what your religion is, you must believe that the vast majority of humanity is terribly delusional and in error. Atheists also believe that. And you don't necessarily have to spend ten years studying each and every crackpot belief system before you reject it.

NC said...

I knew that was coming...

Rejecting the world's religions is not a conspiracy theory. I have mentioned this before.

Religions are not conspiracies, except for the brand new ones (like scientology) whose present leaders know that it is a big lie. Other religions are not conspiracies (although they all started with false or superstitious beliefs thousands of years ago). The present-time followers are just following the system of beliefs they were taught. I don't think that the pope, orthodox rabbinic leaders or Islams mullahs are intentionally propagating a scam about their religion.

The evolution conspiracy theory, on the other hand, requires a present-day attempt to intentionally distort and conceal the truth. I have no reason to believe that scientists are doing that. Your "evidence" for this conspiracy includes a populist documentary about a few disgruntled scientists or the claims of a few religiously motivated science writers. That doesn't fly, sorry.

jewish philosopher said...

"The evolution conspiracy theory, on the other hand, requires a present-day attempt to intentionally distort and conceal the truth."

I don't think you understand what a conspiracy is. It means a number of people all knowingly lying. Large conspiracies are implausible.

Atheism is a religion like any other and evolution is it's god, as I've explained.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/05/atheism-in-nutshell.html

Actually, like most religions, probably no one is really lying. Rather they are simply delusional.

NC said...

You are confusing a conspiracy theory and conspiracy.

A conspiracy is a plot. A [false] conspiracy theory claims that things are not what they seem because of the supposed "conspiracy", which in fact is non-existent.

So I agree with you that organised religion is not a conspiracy (even if false) and therefore claiming that the religion is false is not a conspiracy theory. Nobody claims a plot to deceive and cover up the truth. As you say, they are just delusional (although technically, modern psychiatry exempts religious beliefs from its definition of delusion)

On the other hand, your oft-repeated claim about scientists lying and suppressing the truth is indeed an accusation of a vast conspiracy. So your claim is indeed a conspiracy theory, and a false one.

jewish philosopher said...

Where did I say that? I have little doubt that Charles Darwin was absolutely sincere, as were probably Hitler, Stalin, Jesus, Mohammed, Joseph Smith, etc etc. Wrong, delusional, evil, dangerous, but completely sincere.

nc said...

"Where did I say that?"

For example:

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2009/03/climate-change-and-evolution.html

I won't search all of your comments, but on several occasions you have stated that scientists promote atheism to disempower the clergy and make themselves the leaders. When asked why creationists are publishing peer reviewed research and theories in scientific journals to substantiate their claims, you responded that they are not permitted to publish; and when asked to explain how is it possible in the open scientific society it is possible that the obvious "falsehood" of evolution is not exposed, you responded with examples of scientific scams.

jewish philosopher said...

In that post perhaps I did not make myself clear enough. I did not say anyone is lying. I meant that evolution is so preposterous that even atheists who profess belief in it would never take any mortal risks depending on evolution to save them.

NC said...

I think that is the saying thing as lying.

You are maintaining that scientists devote their entire scientific careers, and departments in university labs, billions of dollars on a theory they don't actually believe.

I think that would qualify as intentionally propagating falsehood, ie lying, ie conspiracy.

jewish philosopher said...

Not really. You see faith is a spectrum. You can have weak faith but that's not the same as lying. The classic example is Matthew chapter 8:

23: And when he was entered into a ship, his disciples followed him. 
24: And, behold, there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep. 
25: And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish. 
26: And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm. 

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvMatt.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=8&division=div1

So I am suggesting that even devout atheist evolutionists are of weak faith in evolution.

"You are maintaining that scientists devote their entire scientific careers, and departments in university labs, billions of dollars on a theory they don't actually believe."

I don't think that's true either by the way. Little time and money are spent on evolution, other than on a few missionary activities to spread the gospel. 

NC said...

"Not really. You see faith is a spectrum. You can have weak faith but that's not the same as lying."

True. It might be correct about casual bloggers or courtroom lawyers. But it is obviously absurd to suggest that Francis Collins or other leading geneticists and biologists don't really believe what they are saying.

"So I am suggesting that even devout atheist evolutionists are of weak faith in evolution."

If you mean by "weak", not willing to be killed because of their scientific theories, perhaps. Nowadays only jihadis do that.

"Little time and money are spent on evolution"

Hardly true. It is the basis and underpinning of all biological research. It explains everything in archeology, microbiology, zoology, and paleontology. Nothing makes sense without it. It is the underlying assumption, to the extent that no scientists need try to prove that evolution is true anymore, just as nobody today tries to to prove that relativity or heliocentrism is true. It would be a silly waste of resources.

jewish philosopher said...

" But it is obviously absurd to suggest that Francis Collins or other leading geneticists and biologists don't really believe what they are saying. "

Why?

"Hardly true. It is the basis and underpinning of all biological research."

It's just a word used to replace "God". It doesn't cost money.

NC said...

"Why?"

For the same reason it would be obviously false to claim that Rabbi Eliyashiv doesn't really believe in Torah Mi'Sinai but in Jesus instead.

"It's just a word used to replace "God". It doesn't cost money"

All of modern genetics and microbiology research assumes evolution. If evolution were false all this research would be a waste of money. Of life forms did not mutate and there wasn't common ancestry, all DNA research would be false. The university departments of paleontology, anthropology and zoology would be wasting all of their budgets, instead of directing the money towards bible studies.

If you answer "god did it" than there's nothing else to study, since there is no incentive to figure out mechanisms-- since it was all supernatural.

jewish philosopher said...

Within Orthodox Judaism there certainly are people with weaker and stronger faith (besides outright hypocrites who are secret atheists). Behavior shows the truth, as in that famous gospel story I quoted.

"Of life forms did not mutate and there wasn't common ancestry, all DNA research would be false."

Actually evolution is merely a creation myth of no practical relevence. The proof is that plenty of good science was done prior to 1859. The Industrial Revolution took off just fine with scientists believing that "God did it" regarding Creation.

Just do this thought experiment. Imagine two scientists working on some research. One, Dr A, is a fundimentalist Christian, fire breathing Young Earth Creationist. The other, Dr B, is a fanatic atheist, total believer in evolution.

Is there any existing useful technology or medical treatment which, all else being equal, Dr B would have developed more quickly and easily than Dr A?

Anonymous said...

NC:
Modern genetics was founed by Gegor Mendel without any need for evolution. And Leewuahook invented micribiology wtihout evolution.

Nathan

NC said...

"Is there any existing useful technology or medical treatment which, all else being equal, Dr B would have developed more quickly and easily than Dr A?"

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

The fundamentalist would not even do this experiment, since there is no need. Evolution does not occur and all distinct life forms were created by god 6000 years ago.

Of course, without such knowledge of evolution we would not understand antibiotic resistance, nor would we develop antibiotics to fight them.

For that matter, why study zoology? Who cares what life forms existed in the past?

Same with the issue of genetic origin of disease:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081016124043.htm

JP, you still haven't addressed my claim that evolution doesn't contradict the existence of god, any more than gravity or relativity or geological science does. It only contradicts the literal interpretation of Genesis.

jewish philosopher said...

NC, your logical fallicies are not getting better, however I applaud you for being more original. I think you are doing Straw Man now. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I say "existing useful technology or medical treatment" and you bring up some useless bacterial culture.

By the way, even Dr A above would not dispute that children and parents are different. My children are different from me, thank God. What Dr A would dispute is the natural, gradual creation of new, useful limbs and organs.

"you still haven't addressed my claim that evolution doesn't contradict the existence of god"

Well, Daniel Dennett has written:

Darwininian evolution eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_Dangerous_Idea#Universal_acid

Not only the existence of God, however belief in evolution, like belief in Jesus or Mohammed for example, creates a new world view which changes everthing.

Also, Richard Dawkins has written:

"atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins#Atheism_and_rationalism

NC said...

"Well, Daniel Dennett has written:..."

Now who is using the straw man argument? Of course its easier to be an atheist after Darwin than before. But portraying people like Dennette, Dawkins and Hitchens as representing the only possible philosophy consistent with evolution is a false dichotomy.

The fact is that most Muslim, Hindus and Buddhists don't have a problem with evolution. So it seems that only the bible thumpers do.

"even Dr A above would not dispute that children and parents are different."

You're talking about diploidy, not evolution.

"and you bring up some useless bacterial culture."

Really? Perhaps the next time you get sinusitis or pneuomnia you should refuse to take a penicillinase resistent antibiotic and take only penecillin, since you don't believe that germs evolve.

Isn't a new or changed enzyme a new useful organ, on the scale of a single cell organism? And if you can get microscopic changes, why not macro? It just takes a bit longer, especially in organisms that multiply more slowly. To directly observe macroevolution we would have to observe for tens of thousands of years. Of course we can only do this retrospectively, which is what paleontology and zoology is about.

NC said...

JP, you should also note that by denying evolution, you also reject earch history science and geology, all of which are linked with the descent of various species. For example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsupial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_Australia

Nothing that we see makes sense without these discoveries. I know that you're not a young earth creationist. But if you accept what geology has to say you would have to claim that god put these distinct species in these different places AT DIFFERENT TIMES (before and after the land masses split, etc), and even that won't explain the interrelations and isolation seen in the genetic and anatomical structure seen in these species.

It just makes so much sense, I really have a hard time imagining how you could deny it.

Paradoxically, the young earth creationist, in all of his silliness, has it easier than you. 6000 years ago god just made things as they are now, and made everything look like it was 5 billion years old. No other explanations needed.

Anonymous said...

NC:

Actually, genetics created problems for evolution. Mendel discovered that the reason offspring resemble their parents is because the parents pass the materials that control heredity intact in discreet units called genes. This makes it very hard account for the variation needed for evolution to happen. Evolutionists rejected genetics until the development of the Synthetic theory.

And microbiology creates problems for evolution as well. Darwin though that cells were just little blobs of jelly. Microbiology revealed that the simplest cell is fantastically complex.

jewish philosopher said...

"But portraying people like Dennette, Dawkins and Hitchens as representing the only possible philosophy consistent with evolution is a false dichotomy."

I would compare evolution to jesus for example. Muslims revere Jesus, as do many jews

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism

Maybe some buddhists do too, for all I know. However I think it's safe to say that jesus has primarily been promoted by Christians.

Same thing with evolution and atheism.

I have a post about biogeography.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2007/05/biogeography-and-loving-god.html

Anonymous said...

NC:

Scientists do don't biogeography anymore. This is because there are so many exceptions that no pattern really holds. For example, the Opposum is a marsupial is found in Norht America. marsupial fossil are found all over the world. And there are lots of different marsupial fossil in South America.

Gene Pool said...

Speaking of hypocrite, may I ask why you do not just kill that Harre Khrisna guy the way God demanded.

I mean he told you to kill anyone that persuade others to worship other God's right.

Just curious. I am not suggesting you should do that of course. I am just curious whether you yourself truly believe on this God.

Reach me at webmaster@genepoolsurvivalguide.com okay. I used evolution theory to get laid.

Jim Thio said...

And by the way, your arguments are good. That Harre Khresna is a pretty close call. I bet that's straw men.

Chinese also have stories about 9 suns that Dayu shot one by one. Mahabrata talks about how warriors that shoot arrows somehow turn the arrows into some form of machine guns. Jesus himself often perform miracle in public.

Then we have this: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Religions/Roman%20Catholicism/hoax_of_our_lady_of_fatima.htm

Fatima also claimed public miracle.

The mountain in Sinai is probably erupting. Moses go to the mountain, and come up with a makeshift megaphone and talk loudly. That would work.

Yea our book keeping are not as good as the Jews and books are burned the Ching.

Even then, bible are filled with holocausts against so many people out of their belief. Sometimes Baal worshippers slaughtered all God's prophet till only Elijah remain. Sometimes latter, elijah killed all Baal worshipers. We know people belief ANYTHING if they're death otherwise.

That looks like some Gap to me.

All right, evolution theory predict so many thing right. What unobvious thing can judaism predict now?

How can God fail to recognize that rabbits do not chew cuds?

I am actually very impressed with Jewish people and hope that maybe you do not know something we don't. But I think I need more explanation here. My impression is Jews are just as clueless as anyone.

jewish philosopher said...

Gene, the Talmud abolished the death penalty 1940 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_and_corporal_punishment_(Judaism)#Capital_punishment_in_classical_sources

I guess you missed the news.

"Fatima also claimed public miracle."

But no revelation.

"How can God fail to recognize that rabbits do not chew cuds?"

I've got a post on that.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2010/01/splitting-hares.html

nc said...

JP--Regarding your post about biogeography-- this is not the only issue. There is geology and the formation of continents in different periods of history, with the life forms present reflecting that.

But anyway, if you say God did it, as you did in one of your comments there, there is no possible answer and no possible way to prove or disprove it. As I said, its like the young earth people claiming that god put fossils and tree rings to make the earth look older than it really is. Its an end of discussion statement since no logic or evidence can prove the statement true or false.

Anonymous said...

The term the Bible uses is "Maale Gera" which means to bring what was swallowes. Rabbits chew their cud, but they bring up waht was swallowed by eating their feces. This serves the same purpose as chewing the cud.

jewish philosopher said...

"There is geology and the formation of continents in different periods of history, with the life forms present reflecting that."

How? The animals of North America of 2 million years ago are totally different than the animals of today, for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleistocene_megafauna#North_America

The white tail deer in my back yard did not evolve from the mamoths and mastodons.

Anti-Zionist-6G said...

He's never heard a counterargument doesn't mean there is no counterargument. It simply means he hasn’t heard it.
And actually, although I don't know what his definition of Judaism is, his point is somewhat self defeating. If Judaism is true then the prophets of Judaism are true. So Prophetic revelation can and does happen. It cannot therefore be used to dismissed as untrue for ANY religion. Kelemens scorn of revelation narratives involving disaster / slate wiping, via Applewhitism, tags Noah with that same scorn and all other prophets.

Also, Christianity started with Jesus, not with Paul. And the intricacy of the Qur'an recited by an illiterate is its own credibility and evidence of it's supernatural revelation.

Furthermore, almost all religions connect to The One. That (if) the Hare Krishna's have the same 'God spoke en masse to the people and the people died" element to their tradition, then I find that quite astonishing and strongly implies is there a common root. That root is, again, One G-d, in this case the phenomenon or depiction ascribed as Krishna.

Kelleman tries to use human logic (statistics, hummmm) to show that a supernatural event must have occurred, but then exclusively uses human logic in all his theorems. Well, why can something supernatural not have happened in other aspects of the human history universe life. Who is Kellemen to pronounce where supernatural events begin and end? I’m quite sure supernatural events could well be beyond Kellmens cognitive chains of pigeon-holeing human logic. He gave no airtime to spirituality and little to faith(which his statologist human logic reasoning makes me think he’s describe faith as irrational when it suits him), which of course can be connected to affiliation of G-d or someone like Applewhite.

ALL religions which root back to The One are true, including Judaism. That doesn't mean that these other religions which contain the rope of truth haven’t been subjected to myths, lies and gross distortions – including what we today call Judaism.

a said...

What about hindu/budhist gods.Wasn't there mass revelations?

jewish philosopher said...

"ALL religions which root back to The One are true, including Judaism."

Since all religions contradict each other, that doesn't seem possible. Two plus two doesn't equal four and three and twenty seven.

"What about hindu/budhist gods.Wasn't there mass revelation?"

Nope.

Anti-Zionist-6G said...

"ALL religions which root back to The One are true, including Judaism."

The point was (which was actually clearly made) is: It's the One G-d element of them is true. The dross attached to them, the contradictions you mention, by the actions of man, is the only reason why they are different. Bin the trash and you get the same thing.

The numbers analogy does not accurately surmise the point.

Btw, nice blog.

Anonymous said...

very good!

Anonymous said...

Read Avigdor Millers Rejoice O' Youth