As I commented on a recent post by Jewish Atheist about homosexuality, I had the idea of collecting in one post some of man's greatest recent discoveries and developments, which strike at the heart of revealed wisdom, and give intellectual underpinning to atheism. I won't go into the classic arguments and proofs (like the existence of evil, etc), but just stick to scientific and sociological developments. OK, here I go. In your comments feel free to add more.
1. The germ theory of infectious disease.
2. The neurochemical basis of mental illness
3. The discovery of fossils and evolution (I know thats a lot in one basket)
4. Cracking the genetic code.
5. The documentary hypothesis
6. The discovery of Ugaritic texts in Syria
7. The granting of equal rights to women
8. The acceptance of the ligitimacy and rights of homosexuals
9. The Big Bang
10. The acceptance of brain death as actual death
As I noted in my comment, 2 additional discoveries are "waiting to happen":
11. Discovering the neurophysiological basis of consciousness and the mind
12. Discovery of life on other planets.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Very good.
What I find disturbing is how as fast as the old superstitions fall, new ones take their place. Few people raised in the Western world believe disease is caused by demons (though there are still some), but there are educated people who embrace homeopathy. Mental illness is also no longer considered caused by demons; instead the frum world sees them as especially holy. Equal rights for women has prompted the frum world to produce apologetics explaining how women’s role in Judaism is special, and holier than that of men, while ignoring all the practical restrictions. And so on.
True, and this is a manifestation of cognitive dissonance theory. When confronted with overwhelming evidence that is contrary to dearly held beliefs, the believer resorts to denial, rationalization, or even aggression. JP's blog personifies this.
Many of these are only issues for specific forms of revealed religion. By and large these aren't problems for revealed religion but problems for certain strains of Abrahamic religions, especially Orthodox Judaism.
> When confronted with overwhelming evidence that is contrary to dearly held beliefs, the believer resorts to denial, rationalization, or even aggression.
True, but my point was that even when a given belief is abandoned, another supernatural belief system springs up to take its place. Magical thinking seems to be a natural way of thinking for most people, and even when a specific instance of magical thinking is proven wrong, it is most often is abandoned only to make way for another instance of magical thinking.
Muslims in the Middle Ages seem to have had less a problem with science and progress than they do now--they were enlightened in comparison to many "modern" Muslims.
I don't think the eastern religions have too much a problem with science, either, since their "revealed" knowledge is primarily in the realm of morality, human nature, etc. For whatever reasons those religions seem to be much less aggressive, too.
G3- I think that more than the need for magical thinking per se, is the need for hope and comfort in the face of our mortality and fragile existence. I also think that religion and magical thinking are spandrels resulting from our big cerebral cortex and our strong need to try to make sense of and organize the world around us.
Most of these make no sense. The rest are just silly.
1. The germ theory of infectious disease.
How does that refute religion?
2. The neurochemical basis of mental illness
How does that refute religion? Oh, because of Dybbuks? Come on, only the most primitive fanatics still believe in that.
3. The discovery of fossils and evolution (I know thats a lot in one basket)
Again, how does refute only the most fanatic?
4. Cracking the genetic code.
How?
5. The documentary hypothesis
Which has been disproven over and over and, like global warming, is maintained by its believers only because they have become as close-minded as their opponents that they deride for being close-minded?
6. The discovery of Ugaritic texts in Syria
Which proves what?
7. The granting of equal rights to women
How does that refute anything?
8. The acceptance of the ligitimacy and rights of homosexuals
Ah, and how do you prove that's objectively okay? And would you say the same about bestialists, pedophiles and polygamists?
9. The Big Bang
How does that refute anything? Science says it happened. religion says it happened and explains where it came from.
10. The acceptance of brain death as actual death
Actually many doctors and scientists still don't accept it as actual death.
Sorry, this is your weakest post ever. You're tring to preach to your choir without being convincing at all.
Don't pretend, Garnel, I didn't spell it out because most of my readers understood. All of these things give naturalistic explanations to things that revealed religion in the past saw as punishment, miracles, demons, etc. #7 and #8 all show that moral progress is made in spite of the bible, not because of it. There's no objective morality, theres just reason and culture. And The Ugaritic texts demonstrate the polytheistic origins of the ancients Israelite religion and how the Torah "borrowed" from neighboring cultures, including the name of their god (s). Read about it, its irrefutable.
No serious biblical scholar rejects the documentary hypothesis, in its modified form. Only fundamentalists do. And Talmidei Chachamim are not scholars, since they cannot challenge or reject certain dogmas dictated by authority.
Excuse me, but that's even weaker.
The germ theory of disease contradicts religion? Maybe someone elses but not Judaism. Just because eclipses were once seen as divine events doesn't mean that religion still insists on seeing them that way. Can you name me one major religion where mainstream thought rejects the germ theory of disease or genetics?
The Ugaritic texts do not demonstrate anything about the ancient Israelites and the Torah borrowed from neighbouring cultures the way Canada borrowed the idea of a speed limit on highways from the United States. Come on, is that it? Because the Torah has civil and ritual laws that are similar to other predominant law codes, it borrowed from them?
As for the documentary hypothesis, like climate change the field self-selects its scholars. You can't be a scholar unless you accept the DH so no scholar rejects it!
And there are plenty of scholars who do reject it based on their reading of the text and their knowledge of surrounding cultures and history.
Finally, your two items waiting to be discovered are still just that - waiting to be discovered. So you should remove them from your list. You have no proof for either at this point.
Garnel, I'm not going to bother with most of your remarks since it will take far more time than I have (Although you might be correct about #10 and #6). So let's just look at the first one. The germ theory of disease directly contradicts multiple statements in the Talmud about the nature of diseases. You cannot reconcile the Talmudic medical beliefs with the germ theory of disease.
Joshua, this is a standard argument - the Talmud said something that is now demonstrably false so the whole religion is false.
Surely even you recognize that this is a leap of logic that even the best longjumper in the world couldn't match.
The relevant question is: Does the germ theory of disease disprove any fundamental principles of Judaism?
I challenge you to find me one.
Talmud medical beliefs contradict the germ theory of disease? Find me one rabbi who says we should disregard 1400 years of medical progress and davka use treatments as prescribed by the gemara.
There are statements in the gemara about the world being flat. How does a spherical Earth contradict the fundamental principles of Judaism? Clearly since only a handful of rabbonim who sit on the extreme edge of the religion still claim we live in on a flat Earth Judaism has no problem with a spherical Earth, 8 planets in the solar system, a heliocentric orbit, etc. No problem at all.
"the Talmud said something that is now demonstrably false so the whole religion is false."
No, but it undermines the Talmud as an authority based source. It undermines claims that rabbis had divine insights which we don't have. So if they were wrong about some things, it doesn't mean that everything they say is "false" but neither is it true simply because the rabbis said it. This includes any historic statements they make about the Torah. So anything they say should be subject to the same scrutiny as things that anybody says. The rabbis were just human beings who had opinions about things.
> but it undermines the Talmud as an authority based source
How, pray tell? First of all, the Talmud does not claim that Chazal had divine insights. That only started in later generations. Further, you fail to distinguish between halachic and non-halachic statements. It is only a recent phenomenon that we have to treat Chazal's non-halachic statements with the same gravity as halachic ones. A prime example of this is in the field of medicine. Many poskim forbid the using of Talmudic measures to treat patients specifically because those treatments do not meet today's standards. They were fine for the time and should be seen as such. Halacha, however, is eternal.
Think of it this way: you meet a lawyer who took biology in undergrad. Clearly his knowledge of current biology would be out of date so if he started opining, you wouldn't listen to him without investigating yourself. Does that make him less of a lawyer? Of course not!
Chazal's job was to transmit the halacha. In that, their authority cannot be questioned. But on other matters, they themselves would recognize that knowledge in such areas changed with time.
Let's face it, folks. All religions, including Judaism, are like viruses of the mind. Because of our psychological makeup, humans are vulnerable to its effects, including magical and illogical thinking, cognitive dissonance, and in some cases, causing those to be infected by it to become violent when they are empowered. Thus you find people like JP and Garnel, using superficially logical thinking, making the arguments they do.
Regarding brain death, nobody other than the religious argue for any other criterion. Its the best we have, but not perfect. Certainly better than lung or heart function which given current technology are certainly wrong. The seat of the person lay in his brain, end of story.
You've refuted none of my arguments, gone off the topic of your post and you dismiss a religion like Judiasm with its plethora of literature, knowledge and influence as a virus of the mind.
What about my thinking is magical or illogical? What was so superficial that you were able to refute it?
I've asked you on several occasions to provide me with an example proving my reasoning has been in error. You have failed to do that repeatedly, instead now turning to insult to prove your weak point.
As for brain death, you are once again wrong. There are many examples of this:
http://www.healthzone.ca/health/article/413962--when-brain-death-isn-t-terminal
http://www-hsc.usc.edu/~mbernste/ethics.braindeath.html
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1036731403800231
There is quite an important discussion going on in the medical community about the appropriateness of using brain death as a crtieria for declaring someone dead, a discussion you are either dismissive or ignorant of.
Your blog description says you are "Orthodox". Exactly why do you call yourself that when you don't believe in any of the principles of Orthodoxy?
Garnel, your comments about brain death reflect the fact that you get your information by mining for links to support your argument, rather than having an understanding of the field, which I do. The fact that there are extraordinary or unusual cases or discussions in various forums causes you to be misled that brain death in "controversial", because you have neither the whole picture nor the professional knowledge to have any informed opinion about the subject.
I repeat, no serious medical professional questions brain death as a true and accepted definition. There may be some technical issues or disagreements, but conceptually nobody questions it.
As far as my description, I live an orthodox lifestyle, my theological opinions have notwithstanding. This is my choice.
An example of your illogical thinking: If the rabbis were unreliable historians or scientists, what makes them qualified to say unquestioningly that something is halacha moshe mesinai, or that any tradition they have is "authoritative", from something that supposedly happened 1000 years earlier? If you grant them unquestioning halachic authority, in preference over any other source (tanach or extratanachic) then you are saying that either they have some exclusive magical power or knowledge to know the right thing or that you grant them the freedom to make up what they want and then you accept it. Either way it is against reason and logic to give men from 2500 years ago that kind of power over your life.
This is turning into such a waste of my time.
> because you have neither the whole picture nor the professional knowledge to have any informed opinion about the subject
Really? Actually I have about as much as you, thank you for knowing about my professional credentials when I haven't even told you about that.
> no serious medical professional questions brain death as a true and accepted definition
Another self-fulfilling definition, because only serious medical professionals don't question it. If you do, you're automatically not serious, am I correct about that?
In fact, if you care to know this issue recently came up in Manitoba, Canada and there were multiple doctors on both sides of the issue. Most professional colleges recognize brain death like you describe but many doctors don't agree.
> If the rabbis were unreliable historians or scientists
But I'm not asking them about history or science. I'm asking them about halacha which is an entirely different field. If a chemist knows nothing about the history of chemistry, does that affect his qualifications as a chemist?
Once again, you have failed to refute any of my points and instead questioned my qualifications to make those points instead, showing the weakness of your position.
"Another self-fulfilling definition, because only serious medical professionals don't question it. If you do, you're automatically not serious, am I correct about that?"
That a majority or consensus exists about the topic among physicians does not prove correctness of the definition of death, and I don't claim that. But to deny that most physicians see brain death as the best criteria of death is simply a distortion of the truth.
If you prefer to see physicians as a conspiratorial group that stifle inquiry and only accept a certain point of view, well, you are free to think that.
I don't know anything about your qualifications, positive or negative, and I would agree that it is irrelevant. However, based on the type of evidence and quotations that you used, it was an indication to me that you don't really understand the issue, or were displaying confirmation bias. Its like if I would try to sound intelligent about plate tectonics and quoting from a few internet sources without having the perspective of an experienced professional.
"But I'm not asking them about history or science. I'm asking them about halacha which is an entirely different field. If a chemist knows nothing about the history of chemistry, does that affect his qualifications as a chemist?"
Poor analogy. First of all, if your chemist was repeatedly spouting off false information about things that revealed his ignorance, it in fact would adversely effect his credibility as a chemist as well. If a chemist said that uranium was brought to earth by aliens from Uranus, he and his chemistry would be dismissed as a crackpot. In the Talmud its not that the rabbis are silent about history or science. They speak about it profusely. Secondly, so much of halacha is based on a flawed view of history and biology, that it must be that the halacha is flawed as well. And there are plenty of examples of this, you know what I am talking about. Furthermore, since ancient rabbis claimed to have divine understanding of the Torahs secrets, why would they not have divine insights about the physical world as well?
It is for this reason that Heredim reject Rabbis Slifkin's assertions about the fallibility of the rabbis regarding science, because they know the truth: if the rabbis could be wrong about science, they could be wrong about everything. They are being intellectually consistent, although I obviously think they are wrong.
Garnel, I agree with you that mistakes made by Rabbis in the Talmud does not intrinsically imply that everything they said is wrong. However, it at minimum is evidence which suggests that they are not reliable sources. That's a serious problem for a claim that they gained their knowledge in any revealed fashion.
No that isn't a slam dunk argument. But to pretend the argument doesn't have force is just silly.
I agree with Joshua's clarification-- I don't mean to say that the rabbis are wrong about EVERYTHING. I think that they were just wise men of their times but had no special insights that we don't have now. They also used their creative powers to modify the Hebrew religion of the bible to be compatible with life in their times.
Post a Comment