"This is where the God-of-the-Gaps (GOTG) fallacy becomes evident. Ash is making an argument from ignorance: just because science doesn’t have all the answers (yet), this doesn’t mean we should jump to invoke a god to explain what’s missing. The missing pieces of a puzzle do not automatically validate the existence of an unseen, supernatural explanation. The “god-of-the-gaps” argument is a logical fallacy where gaps in scientific knowledge are filled with supernatural explanations, essentially concluding that "we don't know, therefore, God did it." This reasoning is not valid because lack of knowledge doesn’t imply an answer—it just means we need more investigation."
This is retarded. There has been plenty of time and zero progress.
This is Yehuda Mishenichnas: "We found unicorn hair, unicorn horns, we've had sightings of unicorns in front of hundreds, and people who drink the found unicorn blood stay inches away from death but lead a cursed existence. However, this doesn't mean unicorns exist! It is a "unicorn-of-the-gaps argument". We are essentially concluding we don't know therefore unicorns exist. This reasoning is not valid because lack of knowledge doesn’t imply an answer—it just means we need more investigation."
This illustratea what I call a Type-3 fallacy: Eliminating conclusions before looking at evidence. Yehuda is essentially saying there is nothing that could ever prove to him the existence of the supernatural because he eliminated that possibility a priori. Any evidence - even God himself appearing to Yehuda - can be dismissed as needing more evidence. There is plenty of evidence for something metaphysical. Quantum physics, free will, and consciousness are all good evidence that something exists beyond our physicality. You can a priori dismiss it or say your standard of evidence requires God himself to appear before you - but then again it is dishonest to say there is no evidence.
>>>This is retarded. There has been plenty of time and zero progress.
What are you talking about?
>>>We found unicorn hair, unicorn horns, we've had sightings of unicorns in front of hundreds, and people who drink the found unicorn blood stay inches away from death but lead a cursed existence.
Again, I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. Is this you mocking me? Is this you making an analogy? We have no good evidence for unicorns or gods. Perhaps you could speak clearly and directly so I can better understand the points you are trying to make.
>>>what I call a Type-3 fallacy
That's already included in a type 2 error of not seeing something that's really there. Can you please demonstrate or provide or even point to any of this evidence that you speak of?
>>>Yehuda is essentially saying there is nothing that could ever prove to him the existence of the supernatural because he eliminated that possibility a priori.
You seem to have changed the focus here, and I wonder if you notice. I wanted to point out to you, though, that I did notice.
You are worried about how we could observe evidence of the supernatural while apparently assuming that it already exists. And you fail to provide any evidence for why you already assume it, and you should be worried about this before you make these claims.
I find you very confused on these matters, Ash. As I said earlier, I don't think you're ready to handle the repercussions of zero basis for the beliefs you so cherish. This is why you shout and insult and say things that don't really make much sense. I see it as you floundering. And it's understandable.
If you're so inclined, you should put together a good response to this post. Let me give you some guidelines:
- please don't use the word 'retarded' (in fact, try to never use that word again)
- provide good reasons for why your belief is justified
- make sure that these reasons do not similarly justify competing beliefs
- ensure your arguments are not circular
- ensure that your examples and analogies do not become so convoluted that your readers can no longer make sense of what you're trying to say
- avoid silly comments
- avoid non sequiturs
- avoid feelings
If you can't do this (and I don't think you can), then you should ask yourself why. It will be because you can't, and that's because no one can. Until then, your comments don't amount to much because there's no substance. You should aim to differentiate a belief from a belief in that belief. I think you think you believe in Hashem, but when you can't explain why, then it's not real. If you don't know why, then it's not real. I think you do it just because that's what you've always done and that's what you're most comfortable with, probably living with your religious family. But I think you're just super comfortable with what you always thought made sense, and now that you've been exposed to these ideas, you're lost. I'm sorry that you feel this way, but once you've exposed yourself to this, there's no way to go back.
I believe Ash's point about unicorns was meant to be a parable or thought experiment about a possible scenario in which the horn and blood of a unicorn had been found. Perhaps it would be better phrased as "let us say that there is a town where people vanish more frequently than the national average. These people fit a similar psychological profile and have a similar appearance. A manifesto explaining the killer's motives was released online. There are no corpses, however, so some people conclude that there is no serial killer, and complain about investigations devoted to finding the killer. Instead, they say, the town should devote its resources entirely to finding alternate explanations until a corpse is found."
As to Ash saying "there has been plenty of time and zero progress," the Copenhagan interpretation of quantum mechanics is still the best we have, despite being thoroughly lambasted by Einstein. Decades after the EPR Paradox, we're still circling back to the Copenhagan interpretation. Similar things can likely be said about the other things Ash brought up, although I am not as well versed in them as I am in quantum physics.
I think we had something very similar to that. It was called the Bermuda Triangle (otherwise known as Devil's Triangle). And people ascribed all sorts of mystical explanations, until it was investigated in more detail and found to not amount to much.
What you're saying is: no, there can be a metaphysical explanation. Ok, but what would that mean, other than just asserting that there's a devil having his way? We can't see a devil, talk to a devil, know that he even exists. We see something happen and we ascribe it to a cause, and then all of a sudden, we know that cause's name and where he lives and what his favorite baseball team is. I also say these things as jokes, obviously, but not to mock anyway in a mean way. It's a rhetorical tool to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to suggest that there's a god who prefers prayers in Hebrew, but sometimes Aramaic. That he understands all languages, but angels only know Hebrew. And they each have only one job. And they have 4 wings or 8 wings or one leg, etc.
>>>As to Ash saying "there has been plenty of time and zero progress,"
I don't think Ash's comments have any merit and I don't think he understands what we're saying. I think he's very bothered and is fighting back, but he doesn't know how to have good discussions sometimes, and many of those bad discussions have happened here.
>>>RESPONSE TO SECOND PARAGRAPH
I'm not a physicist, and I don't pretend to have great familiarity with any of this. But it's really all distraction. Anything that we don't understand that's ascribed to a god merely sets up a GOTG, much like all the previously attributed earthquakes and thunder storms. These just do not rise to any argument at all, but religionists seem to harp on them for what appears to Harris and Dawkins as no good reason.
"The same applies to gods, ghosts, dragons, and fairies. While we can’t know they don’t exist, we also have no good reason to believe they do"
God creates a beautifully designed world, one where life can evolve from the smallest microparticle against all odds in a universe finetuned for human existence, with incredibly complex DNA and life that scientists still don't know how it formed, created consciousness and free will, still unexplainable via physics, created a universe seemingly requires a conscious observer to even operate (via quantum mechanics) and these can only be dismissed via tortured apologetics yet Yehuda Meshinachnas thinks there is no good reason to believe He exists just like unicorns!
This comes off as ridiculous and is frankly insulting. You may interpret this evidence differently (and I think if one does, they are being dishonest) but to dismiss this as evidence comparable to unicorns is even more dishonest. This is laughable.
It's almost like you didn't read anything that I wrote. Here you go again making unjustified assertions. How do you know any of this?
>>>This comes off as ridiculous and is frankly insulting
When you believe in something for no good reason and someone challenges you, before you recognize that you even need good reasons, you will think the other side is ridiculous. It's totally understandable.
And as for insulting, yes, it's very insulting to have someone call you blind when you think you see better than they do. But if all you can come up with are insults and irrelevant discussion about quantum mechanics and DNA, it means that you're not ready to have these conversations.
I know you said that you've read all the Dawkins books, but I think you need to read them again. And this time, try to read them to gain information, rather than with a stink eye.
>>>dismiss this as evidence comparable to unicorns
I am trying not to call what you're doing here idiotic, but you're not even engaging the topic, Ash. You think there's a god. I know why you do: because you were fed Uncle Moishy when you were young. You think it's because there's something about your relationship with god that would be different if he didn't exist. That's what ought to be necessary for you to determine that he is real. Your relationship with your sister would be different if she had never existed, and that's how we know you have a sister (if, in fact, you do).
But if you think you're continuing to have a relationship with your great aunt after she died, you should be able to demonstrate the difference, or else no one should believe you. Where is that evidence for your god? You have none. And you should be upset about it, but that anger shouldn't be directed at me...I'm just the mailman. It should be toward your parents and your teachers, but then again, they were also duped. So it's a difficult situation.
Do you have anything of substance to say at all? Because I'd really like to read it.
Dawkins has to write five books to explain why the world is not designed. Thus, the default position is that it indeed is. You can dismiss that evidence like Dawkins does, but i do not because I do not find Dawkins arguments convincing. (I accept evolution, but the origin of life and the speed and system of evolution are both processes which appear designed because they create functional complexity where none should exist.)
Again, I don't really know where you're going with this. Yes, we already discussed how there's a superficial resemblance to design from a Designer. But upon further investigation, it becomes clearer and cleared that this is not the case. You should really read his books again.
There is no evidence. And even if there was (which there isn't), you can't know that an angel or a demon or a fairy designed it. So please stop wasting your time arguing about design, and provide us all with a really great and compelling piece of evidence that gets you to a god that listens to our prayers and sometimes answers them.
I get a headache trying to understand your "rational" arguments.
I do not necessarily agree with everything that Mishenichnas argues, but by the way you respond to Mishenichnas' honest questions with Ad hominem and insults and you cannot seem to answer any of his questions fairly, made me want to make a substack account just to beg of you to give yourself some time away from posting. Please give yourself time to ask yourself some honest questions, such as what do you think you know and how do you think you know it.
To quote E.T. Jaynes: If you are ignorant about a phenomenon, that is a fact about your own state of mind, not a fact about the phenomenon itself.
If I were not already an atheist, I would consider becoming one just reading your arguments "proving" religion.
Lol. Keep in mind the ad hominems are after many many discussions and absolute frustration with Yehuda. Why don't you judge me by what I've written elsewhere?
"He compares the evidence for any gods (in terms of both quantity and quality) to the evidence for fairies and ghosts"
This is why Dawkins is a complete idiot.
As far as I'm aware, there has never been a fairy or ghost that has been claimed to have appeared in front of millions, revealed texts that have inspired billions and which have changed the world for good, and have passed on traditions that are claimed to be dating back to the origins of that revelation. (For that matter, there has never been a fairy or ghost that has been resurrected in front of hundreds).
You can dispute that evidence and do it logically. But comparing it to fairies or ghosts is dishonest, laughable, and untrue.
Did you even read what I wrote? You seem to be a caricature of the proverbial Orthodox Jew that I wrote about. Instead of hurling insults, please respond to any of the challenges. Don't just let off steam and anger. Provide good reasons why you think there's a god.
>>>there has never been a fairy or ghost that has been claimed to have appeared in front of millions
Your Kuzari claim is not evidence, but just part of your claim. You need evidence for it, my friend.
>>>revealed texts that have inspired billions
Where are these revealed texts? Can you point to even a single bit of information in the Torah that couldn't have been written by a bunch of men from that generation? Even 1 single idea that was beyond the grasp. Something about microorganisms or electricity? How about gravity? Relative strengths of acids and bases? Any good advice to prevent crop failures? I would think that somewhere between all the sacrifices and genocides of Amalek, the talk of witches and sorcery, of raising the dead and talks of angels and demons, I would think that there'd be even one amazing thing that would demonstrate that there really is a god.
But no. It's just fantastical claims and fantastical stories. Sinai and Elijah and blood and frogs. It's all fairy tales and if you're raised on The Midrash Says, you really thought this was historical. But it's not. You properly reject all the Navajo nonsense only because you weren't raised by the indigenous natives in pre-Columbian North America.
And to say that the bible inspired millions or billions, but that most of them got it wrong when they headed down the path of Christianity or Islam is very disingenuous. You are calling them people of the book when it's convenient, but not when I ask you why you don't follow their traditions. Your faith is clearly a bad joke and you are only confronting it now. I'm sorry, because I know it can be tough.
Now instead of just hurling insults or nonsense arguments, please give me good reasons to believe in the specific, actual god you believe in. Not silly responses like quantum physics or DNA that just as equally point to the Navajo god or a deistic god. Design gets you absolutely no where toward a god who listens to your prayers, so let's not waste time with that either.
I'm confused. Let's talk about something metaphysical happening.
You keep doing this, moving the goalposts towards this ridiculous version of what the Bible critics call Yahweh. I am not trying to prove anything more than something metaphysical and some sort of deistic designer. If you can talk about that, great.
But please stop bringing in specific details about God which are completely irrelevant to this discussion. I do not believe this twisted version of Orthodox Judaism you claim I do. The Medrash says? Lol. But you are the stereotypical new atheist, not even attempting to understand why others could disagree with you, coming across as autistic and keeping on missing the point. You think the God Delusion is accurate and Sam Harris some kind of sage, instead of realizing they may just be gaslighters or people who miss the boat. Incredible.
I Don't know anything about that book but judging by its cover it seems like it would just be echo chamber apologetics and not worth engaging in seriously. Correct me if I'm wrong
I read this the last time you posted it (or someone else posted it), and I still don't understand it.
I always wondered why gentiles became so convoluted when they tried to explain themselves, and now I know why. It's because I assumed that Orthodoxy was true and correct and never applied the same challenges consistently to Orthodoxy. Once you do that, it becomes clear that this is not an argument and neither is anything any Orthodox Jews speak about.
My one critique is you may be conflating God and religion.
In my opinion it is reasonable to believe in an intelligent designer, or an original cause. While I’ve heard all the counters to the Kalam argument, none of them seem to state that an intelligent designer is unreasonable.
I do believe that the standard religious claims about the intelligent designer are unreasonable though. Revelation, divine scripture, prophecy etc all seem to run counter to any true understanding of an infinite, intelligent designer.
Even though Substack is open to the public, I venture to guess that upwards of 85% of readers here are Orthodox Jews, and so that's who I'm talking to. They do not argue for an intelligent designer, but rather the רבונו של עולם who is also the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. The one who helped Joseph in prison, Moses at Horeb, Joshua in Gilgal, Shmuel in Mitzpah and Elijah on Mount Carmel.
Ash comes to argue for Deism, but why is he doing that? Is he a deist? Ploinus comes to welcome reports of Christian and Muslim and Navajo and Baba miracles, but that's not Orthodoxy.
So we can talk about deism, but let's not confuse reasonable limits for deistic thoughts for support for Orthodox Judaism.
The gap between the philosopher’s god and the religious god seems to be quite large. We can reason a being that is the uncaused cause. A being that must be truly unbound by anything we can conceptualize, because that being would be the cause of that conception in the first place. To ascribe “want” to that being, as all religions do, would be sacrilegious.
>>>We can reason a being that is the uncaused cause.
We can imagine many things, but until there's good evidence, we ought to reserve judgement. We can reason many things, but we can also fall into many, many traps where we think we see answers but there aren't, or we see we see true results but they are merely statistical anomalies.
So yes, the philosopher's god is a deistic god, which no Orthodox Jew is really ok with. Which is why these sorts of arguments are non-starters, similar to when there's a god vs. no-god debate and Shmuely Boteach is on the same side as an Muslim cleric and a Catholic priest. Like Harris says, religion is such a suitcase term, like sports. We have Thai boxing where you can get punched in the head and die and you have lawn bowling. Jokingly, he notices that they share very little in common other than breathing, and yet they are both called sports. So, too, with religion.
Any good evidence in support of Christianity that is also good for Judaism is not specific enough, and so insufficient for the Orthodox Jewish crowd. And any evidence good enough for Judaism (which we have yet to uncover), would not be good for Christianity, and so the entire set up makes a mockery of the entire discipline. That Boteach can't see this or didn't see this is telling, unless he was just trying to get on stage. But it still greatly dilutes his cause, assuming he's an Orthodox Jew promoting Orthodoxy.
>>>A being that must be truly unbound by anything we can conceptualize, because that being would be the cause of that conception in the first place.
The greatest being that can be conceptualized must actually exist, and so he must, and so he does.
Doesn't that just solve it? What a waste of all this debate and argument, when we could have just written this singular sentence.
We have many philosophical conversations that are irrelevant to a materialist. That seems to be the position you’re taking. If so then we can shut down all of these discussions and leave it that. Yehuda is a materialist and therefore no arguments of reason and logic matter, unless they can be backed up scientifically.
Regarding your last point, you’re being unnecessarily derisive and confusing as well. Are you deliberately throwing in an ontological argument that I didn’t make?
But I do agree with you. The conversation of a deistic/pantheistic/panentheistic god is irrelevant to someone that needs a practical application.
I apologize, for I wrote that tongue-in-cheek, and didn't realize that it would come across otherwise until I just now see that offense was taken. I am truly sorry.
>>>We have many philosophical conversations that are irrelevant to a materialist...Yehuda is a materialist and therefore no arguments of reason and logic matter
But yes, the materialist wonders what the philosopher is even saying. How do you get past materialism. That's my question and my challenge all along. We can all ponder, but how do you get from thinking about things that could be real to justified belief that it is real? It seems so clear that when you're raised to find comfort in your religious upbringing that you just don't want to let go. How many people follow the religion of their parents? I don't have numbers, but it seems to be the number one determinant.
Why does religion deserve to be treated any differently than the drug trial that the drug company wants to be successful? Or the election that the candidate really wants to win? Or the baseball game that the coach really wants to win? There's a premise and there's a claim and let's see if anything touches the ground. Where does religion interact with reality, and I don't mean here the practice of religion, but the trigger to practice the religion.
Stories from thousands of years ago are unbelievable, given human's gullibility and fallibility when it comes to propagating tales. We have thousands of religions and the people who believe in one of them are atheists when it comes to all the others. But what separates one from another? Well, your priest and your rabbis tells you what does, but upon deeper inspection, it's clear that the priests and the rabbis didn't have all the information. Similar claims have indeed been made by others and the bible isn't as special as it was presented to be.
So when Sam Harris gets up to speak, he's not really telling you that he doesn't believe as much as he's asking why you believe. And he's swatting away all the bad arguments, showing you that you can't believe in god because you need him and you can't believe in god because you want him. You need to believe in him like you would believe in the truth of someone talking to their dead grandmother. He's asking you why you believe, and no one answers him properly, he contends.
I'll accept it when there's good reason to. Like I would need if you claim you talk to your great grandmother. Or that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is still alive.
I tried this approach with Yehudah off line and he was similarly dismissive. It's like he never heard of a divide-and-conquer strategy where you tackle the lowest hanging frut first and then work your way up to the higher, less accessable ones.
I personally think this is one of Yehudah's defense mechanisms for protecting his atheism. If you can't convince him to go from level 6 atheist to level 2 theist straight in one conversation, he ends the discussion and declares victory. How convenient.
I find it curious that all the religionists seem to complain about how the secularists think or talk or engage. Instead, religionists should confront the issues.
I respect the scientific method. I have defended the scientific method against those who would put the weight of "science" behind assertions that cannot be supported by the scientific method (such as one assertion I encountered that "science" had concluded that Stalin and Mao were not leftists, despite them, their allies, and their opponents identifying them as such; it was a No True Scotsman fallacy coated in an argument of authority of "scientists," and when I pointed that fact out, I was told that I, an Information Science major from a paternal line of engineers and scientists, didn't understand science). Newton, the formulator of the inductivist scientific method, in my opinion, is one of the greatest of the Wise Men among the Nations, standing alongside such great thinkers as Aristotle and Plato.
All of that said, I think the New Atheists, generally speaking, are guilty of the fallacy of presenting the scientific method as the only way to obtain knowledge, when really, the Scientific Method is, by design, confined to natural philosophy. It is not a useful method of inquiry for metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and other branches of philosophy that do not fall into the category of natural philosophy. This kind of thinking results in things like Pilot-Wave Theory and String Theory (although I think calling either of those things "theories" is an insult to the Theory of Relativity). What you in this post call "religion" and "superstition" are the result of mass inquiry into realms of philosophy beyond natural philosophy that don't require themselves to be dressed in the language of natural philosophy like Pilot-Wave Theory and String Theory are.
>>>It is not a useful method of inquiry for metaphysics
You are correct. But this is how they see it. Someone made a category of things with an unwieldy name like "that which cannot be investigated by observation" and to make is easier, they gave it the much more user-friendly name of "metaphysics."
Now, I don't know what goes in this category because I don't think we known of anything metaphysical. If we knew about it, it wouldn't be metaphysical, I think by definition. So let's say, that in the least sarcastic manner, one claims that there are spirits in the clouds that made it rain and spirits in the air that made the wind blow and spirits in the ground that made the grass grow and spirits in the water that made it flow.
There's something called the adrenal gland, and it secretes some hormones. It does so under neuronal control and hormonal control. Let's call these sources of control the masters of the adrenal gland. The master gland is called the pituitary gland, and to come extent, the hypothalamus can be referred to as the master gland of the pituitary gland, which itself is called the master gland. In summary, they hypothalamus > pituitary > adrenal is a system well understood by science, but of course, there's probably a lot more to understand.
My point here was to compare the two: a bunch of metaphysical spirits controlling weather and crop growth and whatever else against the endocrine gland system described in summary above. The difference is that the endocrine system is described, while the metaphysical system is fabricated. If there's no way to observe it, how can we say anything about it? You can't just say that since it rains, those spirits are active, and since the grass grew, those other spirits are active. If we can observe we can know, and if we can't, it's just wild guessing.
Why do we have to have such a convoluted overlapping of glands and nerves to explain the adrenal gland? The reason is: because that's what we find. We're not discussing evolution here, but just why this story has to be so complicated. The explanation is complicated because we observe it to be complicated. If we can't observe the various spirits in the clouds and the grass seeds, how to we know there's just one each? Maybe there's a slave spirit and a master spirit? Because we're being economical an parsimonious? Just saying that seeds work without spirits is the most economical, and so that's what we do.
You say that science is not a good way of investigation metaphysics, but what is? What method can you possibly use to investigate the un-investigatable? That's my question to you. And this is essentially the initial and entire problem with religion. That they want to have metaphysics but have no way of bringing it from the world of ideas to the world to reality.
We can use analogies and examples, and while some people welcome them, others (apparently) do not. So we can talk about spirits in the clouds and grass, and maybe those are strawmen, but I don't know what else to say. Maybe that's seen as silly and mocking in an unserious way, but I don't think so. We can talk about a secret train to a secret castle where people wave their wands and say incantations and it's all real and it all works. But at least in Harry Potter, it's real. Imagine if in our real world, it was claimed that the Harry Potter books and films were not just entertainment, but claims of something metaphysical. Ok, we're ok with claims. And lots of things we see in the universe seem to require explanation. And the religious people who believe in Harry Potter World say, "how do you explain all the weird and wonderful things that we see? Obviously it's Dumbledore! And do you see all the terrible things? That's Voldemort!" But there's no way to ever find Hogwarts or Diagon Alley, and no one's ever held a Galleon and no one can produce a wand that makes sparks and no one's ever seen a dragon or a house elf.
If there's absolutely no way to tell the difference between a real parallel Harry Potter World that we just can't ever sense vs. our world where we also can't ever find Hogwarts because it doesn't exist, then in what sense is it meaningful to talk about a real Dumbledore?
Harris and Dawkins say that it's because it makes people feel good, and when you teach this to little kids as though it's real, they grow up thinking it's real and it's difficult to dislodge these beliefs.
>>>ethics
I don't know what you mean by ethics, and we can discuss this separately if you would like
>>>This kind of thinking results in things like Pilot-Wave Theory and String Theory
I'm with you on this. I am not a physicist and do not really understand what they're doing with multiple universes and string.
>>>What you in this post call "religion" and "superstition" are the result of mass inquiry into realms of philosophy beyond natural philosophy that don't require themselves to be dressed in the language of natural philosophy
They don't think any inquiry is being made. They think indoctrination is in play here, where no one is actually interested in reality and they are instead interested in stories. And instead of engaging with these conflicting ideas with serious discussion, people call each other names and insults. Yuval Noah Harari will tomorrow admit that there's a gland in charge of the hypothalamus if we find one, even though every book says that it's the master master gland...because maybe we were wrong, and the way to undermine science, so to speak, is with better science. And Harari will also tomorrow admit there is a god, as soon as there's some good reason to believe in him. As would Pinker and Dawkins and Harris. The arrogance, they say, is on the side of religion, where people say they know but can't possibly because there's no way to confront or engage the things that we say cannot, by definition be known. Just presenting stories in books is not good enough.
Linking to my post here so that people here can decide whether Yehuda Meshinachnas quoted me fairly: (btw , Yehuda, a good debating tactic is to link to the actual articles you are quoting from. That way people can tell whether you are strawmanning or not. I always link.)
Because I wrote this as a guest post under Simon, I sent in a draft that he posted for me under his name. That's why the headings are a bit inconsistent and there are no links. But I have nothing to hide and I apologize if you think I do.
Here's a "simple" question that I believe would be very helpful to many people. There are very intelligent, educated people on both sides of this issue. Stripping away all the uneducated, flawed arguments, what do you think it ultimately comes down to that some intelligent people believe in a God and others believe there is no God? What is the core difference of opinion?
That is an amazing question. Perhaps I missed my mark, but that's what I thought I wrote about. And this is how Harris writes and this is how Dawkins writes.
>>>what do you think it ultimately comes down to that some intelligent people believe in a God and others believe there is no God?
I think religious people are captured by a wonderful vision of something they were taught by their parents and grandparents and teachers. Then they grow up, and how many people really think to themselves about what they really know, what they just think they know and what they're lying to themselves about? Hardly anyone.
There's a great video on YouTube where Dawkins and Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks speak. I thought Dawkins was amazing and Sacks came out the loser of the discussion/debate. And I really don't mean that at all as an insult. I just mean that he lost, and big time. His position was utterly demolished. Both overall and in particular, everything he said in favor of Judaism was completely ridiculous and it was a waste of his time, as he did a great disservice to Judaism. He made zero comments of value other than when he was conceding ground to Dawkins. Anyone looking for objective guidance could see that. Anyone who doesn't think about what they believe and why probably thought that he did a good job. But a good job at what? He was kind, yes. Gentle, yes. He was conciliatory and deferential and all the things a chief rabbi, and even a regular Jew, should be. But this wasn't a popularity contest and it wasn't a kindness pageant. It was a discussion of whether religion is true and he couldn't land even a single point.
>>>What is the core difference of opinion?
Whether or not one wants to be honest with oneself. And Lord Rabbi Sacks came across as someone who believes in fairy tales. For all his erudition, his position had zero supportive content. Not even one iota of justification. And this is not to say that he's not smart...of course he's smart! And this is not to say that he's unaccomplished, of course he is! And one can clearly see that he had מדות טובות comparable to Dr. Middos himself. But the only person he could convince was someone who's already an indoctrinated fan of his or someone who is not paying keen attention to the real point being discussed.
Notice how all of the responses were either insults or pleading to view the metaphysical claims in a non-scientific rubric. But what else is there? Science is not beakers and test tubes. It's not laser beams and rockets. It's just making sure that what you did worked for the reason you thought it worked. It's just repeated observation and noting what works and what doesn't. It's the only thing we've got. I don't know how you get off the ground at all thinking that you can arrive at a metaphysical approach when you can't even observe the metaphysical. It's just thinking about things but with no way to justify a new way of thinking. I am actually asking, what else is there? We don't know...so let's just say we don't know. But you don't need two sets of dishes and scrolls here there and everywhere if you don't know. The day you are concerned with avoiding Hindu hell and putting a coin in your grandmother's casket so she can cross the toll bridge is the day you should wear tzitzis.
First of all, saying that religious people are religious because they haven't really given any thought to it is utterly ridiculous. I can elaborate why if you are interested.
2nd, I watched half the debate (I didn't have the time/interest to watch the entire thing). My impression was that this debate ended up having nothing to do with atheism vs theism. R/L Sacks was explaining his understanding of the world based on his belief that there is a God, and Dawkins based on his belief that there is no God. I didn't see any part where they actually debated whether or not it makes sense to believe there is a God - did they get to that in the second half?
I will concede that it was odd when R/L Sacks interpreted that chapter as being anti-Semitic, but other than that he sounded just fine to me.
(as an aside, did you not notice when R/L Sacks mentioned that he has read all RD's books? Don't you think he may have given RD's approaches some thought and despite that decided it makes more sense to believe in God??)
>>>2nd, I watched half the debate (I didn't have the time/interest to watch the entire thing).
What could be more important than the truth? You are crippling your position before you even begin here. You demonstrate that you don't care and that this is not an area of concern for you. But what could possibly be of greater concern? If one's entire life is built around religion, as most Orthodox Jews do, and that religion is false, what could be of greater interest?
There's no such thing as not having enough time. People make time for what's important.
>>>My impression was that this debate ended up having nothing to do with atheism vs theism. R/L Sacks was explaining his understanding of the world based on his belief that there is a God, and Dawkins based on his belief that there is no God.
Yes, and Sacks provided no reasonable basis for any of his views or claims. I've read his books, and he does the same there. He starts off as though you're already a believer and never provides a good reason to believe. It's a big problem.
>>>I didn't see any part where they actually debated whether or not it makes sense to believe there is a God - did they get to that in the second half?
Again, this should be the most important video for everyone to watch. All the secularists who didn't watch this are also at fault if they don't think this is the most important thing.
>>>I will concede that it was odd when R/L Sacks interpreted that chapter as being anti-Semitic, but other than that he sounded just fine to me.
Agreed.
>>>(as an aside, did you not notice when R/L Sacks mentioned that he has read all RD's books? Don't you think he may have given RD's approaches some thought and despite that decided it makes more sense to believe in God??)
No. I think Sacks feels stuck. Check out the clergy project.
>>>No. I think Sacks feels stuck. Check out the clergy project
It sounds to me like you've reached this conclusion by projecting your own feelings and assumptions onto others—something I’ve noticed in your approach. Of course, you can do your own cheshbon hanefesh to decide whether that’s accurate.
I fully acknowledge that we are all human, and R' Sacks was human as well, which means there is always an inherent challenge in breaking free from our default beliefs. I also recognize that many people believe in God without ever having given the matter deep consideration, just as there are those who do not believe but feel stuck in their position.
However, to suggest that almost everyone falls into that category is simply not realistic. I say this as someone who has given the topic significant thought and has encountered many others—some far more intelligent and well-read than I am—who have also grappled with these questions and still arrived at belief. And if that’s just within my own limited circle, it stands to reason that there are countless more.
The fact that you are fully convinced there is no God does not mean that everyone else has either failed to think critically about it or has secretly reached the same conclusion but feels trapped. People arrive at different beliefs through genuine, thoughtful inquiry, even if their conclusions differ from yours.
>>>It sounds to me like you've reached this conclusion by projecting your own feelings and assumptions onto others...
I've reached this conclusion by having encountered no good responses to the Harris / Dawkins / Hitchens / Dennett rejection of religion.
>>>I also recognize that many people believe in God without ever having given the matter deep consideration, just as there are those who do not believe but feel stuck in their position
Oh, granted, granted and granted.
But I thought that R' Sacks, being the erudite scholar that he is, in preparation for meeting with Dawkins, being the erudite scholar he is, would have prepared for exactly this sort of encounter, and even if his performance could have been lacking, his content should have at least been substantial. What's the purpose of debating and discussing a claim if afterward, you see that your claim lacks sufficient support, you just continue claiming it?
>>>some far more intelligent and well-read than I am—who have also grappled with these questions and still arrived at belief
Please have them private message me. I am keenly interested in what they have to say in defense of Judaism.
>>>The fact that you are fully convinced there is no God
I am merely firmly convinced that the only reasonable position to take is Dawkins level 6 on his 7 point scale: de facto atheism, much like you are likely firmly convinced that the only reasonable position to take on big foot and Loch Ness monster and fairies in the garden is level 6.
>>>does not mean that everyone else has either failed to think critically about it or has secretly reached the same conclusion but feels trapped
Everyone arrived at their conclusions for a reason. I want to know what that reason is. I suspect it's because they've been indoctrinated, and yet no one seems to give a reason that can disturb that suspicion. When distilled, they're all vague and weak and just not good enough to convince someone else who doesn't already believe.
>>>People arrive at different beliefs through genuine, thoughtful inquiry, even if their conclusions differ from yours.
And all I have been doing all along was ask anyone and everyone here to consider if they can explain what that genuine, thoughtful inquiry consists of, and explaining that it should amount to a gargantuan, puffed-up version of "I believe because I want to believe and I believe that that's sufficient."
>>>What could be more important than the truth? You are crippling your position before you even begin here
From the beginning of our correspondences I feel you have been consistently misreading me and my opinions (which is why I asked you about your social alignment)
This is another example, I'll explain. Your assumption is off for two reasons:
1) Just because you feel one should spend one's entire life searching for truth doesn't mean everyone else shares that same value. I have been searching for truth for around 15 years now. At the beginning of my journey I felt more similar to you, that I need to dedicate almost all my time to it. As I progressed, I became at peace with the realization and acceptance that absolute truth is probably impossible. I decided to do the best I can and live the best life I can within that framework. I still consider myself a searcher for truth and I assume that will continue for the rest of my life, but it is no longer an obsession of mine.
2) The reason I lost interest in this particular "debate" was not because I am not very interested in the "truth". It's because I didn't see much value anymore in this debate, they were each talking from different perspectives and it did not feel like a debate at all. I would bet you haven't watched every single youtube video that deals with God and Atheism, right? Is it because you are not intensely interested in finding truth? Or is it because some videos interest you and some do not, and others are not exactly dealing with things you feel bring out truth?
I sincerely hope you can concede then that my lack of interest in watching the full video does not at all cripple my position. If you cannot concede, then my sense is you do not communicate in good faith and you are not somebody I would spend time discussing this further.
>>>The reason I lost interest in this particular "debate" was not because I am not very interested in the "truth"
As I've written in the first portion of this response, I disagree. I think you're exceedingly interested in truth in all cases where truth matters, except for the carve out you've made for religion. That's what indoctrination does.
In 1997, 39 members of the Heaven's Gate cult committed mass suicide in an attempt to ride the Comet Hale-Bopp to the next world. I can't speak for Ploinus, but does he believe them? I also can't speak for you...do you believe them? Do you think it's unfortunate that they were all duped into this? Were they just a bunch of idiots? No. They were just so incredibly gullible. Just like followers of all religions. If you read the Wikipedia article, you will likely feel a senselessness to all of it, similar to how you'd feel when reading the Wikipedia article on Navajo religion, and as expose yourself to more and more religion stories and customs that are foreign to you, you will get a sense of how weird religion is. When you're raised in it, it doesn't seem weird to you at all. Just like bloodletting didn't seem weird to all the ignorants who performed it and had it performed on them hundreds of years ago. And ignorants is not an insult...it just means that people didn't know any better. In 1,000 years from now, we will be referred to as ignorants.
>>>I would bet you haven't watched every single youtube video that deals with God and Atheism, right?
You would make a lot of money on that bet. :)
But that doesn't mean I can't be or that I'm not intimately familiar with all the arguments made. Which is why I might come across as overly confident in these discussions. The discussions are not over yet, and I'm right now awaiting responses from both Ploinus and Ash on my most recent responses to their responses to my responses, but to me, it seems like we've gone full circle. My most recent responses to their positions are essentially the same: they are comporting their minds to align with where they want to end up, and that's called cheating. I don't mean that as an accusation, but I mean cheating like when we refer to cherry picking as cheating. I'm not saying that either or both of them (or you) are being devious or conniving, even. I'm saying that all Orthodox Jews, among all religious people, have been duped. And here are the reasons why I think so. And if the only thing one can respond after 10,000 words of discussion is: "well, you're only saying that because
a) you're so interested in truth. I am not...
or
b) you're an empiricism, but I am not...
or
c) you're not listening to what I am saying...
or
d) you're giving me a headache or please stop insulting me
then it means that these people have no good reasons, which was all that I said in the beginning. That was literally my initial comment. And after 10,000 words, we're right back there. Because as I've detailed above, you're all so very interested in truth in all other domains other than in religion. And you're empiricists in all times and places in life other than when you're davening מנחה or making tea-sense on ערב שבת, or any of the other times you close your mind, focus on the religion and ignore what you'd never ignore in any other activity, whether it's online banking or driving or cooking or plugging in your phone. You do what works and you don't do what don't works. Only in religion do we have blinders on.
>>>Is it because you are not intensely interested in finding truth?
I am more intensely interested than you might imagine. And I will listen to any video you send me and read any book you recommend. But just please recognize that after reading and watching as much as I have and constantly seeing the same bad arguments over and over, I don't trust that there's anything out there that will change my mind. I'm not saying that I'm not open to changing my mind, but that the counter evidence is just not forthcoming.
Look at the 3 most prominent serious contenders here: Shulman, Ploinus and Ash. Their arguments are all bad. Shulman wants me to answer how I can avoid missing out on reporting of something true that we just can't confirm anymore, like sighted people that have become extinct. He ignores the balance we must maintain when it comes to seeking truth by avoiding both type 1 and type 2 errors. Jordan Peterson makes a similar point when he is asked why he doesn't just accept transgenderism and think it's a great idea to call everyone by what they want to be called. He explains that some transgender claims are true (in that that's how they actually feel, even if we would call them mentally unstable) but that others are not real (in that they are just making claims for popular reasons). I am not interested in a trans debate here, but bring this up because he points out that we must be concerned about not just missing out on properly referring to real trans but also to avoid mis-labeling those who erroneously think they are trans. And this avoidance of both errors requires a balance, and sometimes we will make mistakes. It would be nice to bring both sensitivity and specificity to 100%. Maybe one day we will approach it so more closely than we can do now that it'll be considered virtually perfected. But Shulman's argument is not a good argument because Judaism doesn't say to accept Shulman's wager. It asserts, definitively, that this is true. So his analogy does not comport with Judaism's claims.
For purposes of brevity, since we are all awaiting responses from Ash and Ploinus in their respective conversations, I will refer you to there, and I can link to you privately if you wish.
>>>If you cannot concede...
I will concede that everyone has their priorities based on their desires and their free time, and that I cannot decide for you how much free time you should have to consider the priorities that I have. I just thought that this is the most important thing you could possibly have on your plate right now, considering how much of a grip Orthodox Judaism has over the life of an Orthodox Jew.
But this video is unimportant if the lessons one would take from them can be gained from elsewhere, and I think they can.
>>>Just because you feel one should spend one's entire life searching for truth doesn't mean everyone else shares that same value.
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm describing here, and it requires me to get very literal in order to elaborate, and so you ask about my social alignment.
When you're walking in the park, looking at the foliage, or perusing the films available (either on the shelf at Blockbuster 35 years ago or on Netflix last night), these are not examples of where truth is important. We are not assessing claims about the universe, and so truth is not a variable. There are many, many instances like this in life.
But when you're washing the dishes, there are many variables that come into play to define a good washing of the dishes vs. a bad washing of the dishes:
- water pressure
- water volume
- water temperature
- presence of soap
- surfactant capability of the soap
- viscosity of the soap
- density of the sponge
- force of application of the sponge
- number of times of application of the sponge
- direction of motion of the sponge against the dish
These are just a few that immediately popped into my head, and there might be more, as well as synergistic effects of two or more of these together that do not show up when only one of them is in play. What does a wife mean when she tells the husband that he doesn't do a good job washing the dishes?
- the dishes are still dirty
- it took him way too much time, even though they're all clean
- there's a big mess
We can continue the analysis, but I think my point is made. Washing dishes is something we mostly take for granted, but look how much science there is involved. It doesn't matter how nice you are or how much charity you give (צדקות וחסידות). It doesn't matter if you stole the soap (מצוה הבאה בעבירה). It doesn't matter if you wash the dishes on the wrong day (איסור רחיצה). It doesn't matter how you heated up the water (איסור בישול). All that matters are the things I listed and other similar things. For washing dishes and all other things where we make claims about the universe that are objective (the dishes are clean or are they still dirty), we take a very empirical approach. And we means everyone who understands that the universe is a real place. This is not theoretical. Prayer will not matter when it comes to washing dishes, and neither will proper intention. (Of course intention matters, but I mean to say that if all you have is the best intentions, it won't work so well if the water is cold or you have no soap, etc.).
So you say that "not everyone shares these values" but I disagree and have explained in detail why I disagree and even why I think you disagree. When discussing with Ploinus as to why he believes in this god but not the 10,000 other gods, he responded with a curveball: he DOES believe in magic and fairies and all the other 10,000 gods. This does not prove to be an insurmountable defense of religion, but it does modify my approach in response to his response.
Are you now going to say that you actually do not care about or consider truth when washing dishes or driving on highway when you have ladders on your truck? Of course you do, I would say, but since you politely protested that I strawman you or put words in your mouth, I would like to ask if you could please expand on this comment of yours, because I don't believe you.
My assertion is that everyone cares about truth when they are evaluating claims about the universe, and you respond that not everyone is searching for truth always. I am saying that there is a carve out where some people sometimes do not search for truth, but that carve out is not an exception because I was only speaking about times when we all do (or should) be keeping tabs on truth. That's all I was talking about. Claiming there's a god is much more similar to claiming that you have the funds to repay the mortgage you are applying for and much less similar to walking in the park and looking at the foliage.
>>>I became at peace with the realization and acceptance that absolute truth is probably impossible
I love this point! It's so important to consider it, but it's equally (if not more) important to understand that it's a challenge that is swiftly dispelled.
The fact that absolute truth is unattainable should serve as no obstacle in your mind and does not actually serve as any barrier in practice to pursue maximally attainable truth. As in my previously mentioned ladder on a truck example and in my present washing the dishes example, can we not imagine a better way? A more efficient way? A less costly way? Of course we can. We're always looking for better welding techniques and better screw designs to achieve greater preload and soaps with better surfactant activity, but when we get there, we'll just look past that to the next better thing. I don't think anyone feels this way, and I think we all want to use the currently available maximally strong grease-dissolving soap even though it's understood that it's a journey and we'll get to a better soap in 10 years or 50 years.
In other words, we all actually do seek truth almost all the time, and we never consider our inability to necessarily make an immediate jump to absolute truth as an impediment to accepting the best we can right now. As Maya Angelou said: "Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better."
And so, to suggest that this is a problem here would be special pleading.
>>>I decided to do the best I can and live the best life I can within that framework
Perhaps I'm reading your intention in this incorrectly, but do you mean that since you've considered the things you've listed above and saw no other way, you decided to proceed as you are?
If so, I would equate that with orthopraxy. If you can't find a good reason to believe, then you aren't actually believing. You can't trust someone you don't trust. It's a reaction, not a decision. You may act as though you do believe (or trust), but without the factors present to trigger such a reaction, you're just acting. And that's my entire point and all that I've ever been saying here. That there are no good reasons to believe, and so there are no real triggers here, and all people who consider these points have only two options: orthopraxy or non-observance. And you can act as a very fervent orthoprax. But if the janitor in your synagogue or your co-worker one day asks you about your belief in a sincere manner, the answer would not really be that you believe. It's that you don't know any of the things that Judaism pretends are known, and that we're just doing this because we want to. Which is fine, but it doesn't align with the tenets of Orthodoxy. Only people who do not think about what they're doing and why, who are living in a bubble and feel unfettered by reason and logic, or who think that these ideas and beliefs have been sufficiently vetted and passed with flying colors, only those people can be said to be truly Orthodox. The rest who have delved intellectually are at most loyal and dedicated orthopraxists.
I appreciate your thoughtful comments, but the length is overwhelming. If you’d like to continue this discussion, please keep your responses much shorter.
That said, I strongly disagree with the idea that there are no good reasons to believe. Belief is not a one-size-fits-all proposition—what convinces one person may not convince another, and the threshold for belief varies. Personally, based on both my own experiences (while fully recognizing the potential for confirmation bias) and my observation of a world that I do not believe could exist without a designer, I have come to believe in God as a being who is at least somewhat involved in the world.
Your approach treats belief in God as if it must meet the same empirical standards as a scientific hypothesis or financial claim, but that’s a fundamental misframing. People do not engage with faith in the same way they evaluate soap chemistry or mortgage applications. Not because they are being irrational, but because belief operates in a different category—one that includes personal experience, intuition, and philosophical reasoning.
Finally, while I respect your commitment to pursuing truth, not everyone shares the same methodology or priorities in that pursuit. That doesn’t mean they aren’t engaged in an honest search or that their conclusions are invalid—just that they may be looking through a different lens than the one you insist is the only valid approach.
>>>I'm sorry but I think you are way off base here.
I'm really glad to hear any and all opposing opinions on the matter. Can you perhaps specify what you are referring to, or do you think that everything I have written about is incorrect?
>>>First of all, saying that religious people are religious because they haven't really given any thought to it is utterly ridiculous. I can elaborate why if you are interested.
Oh yes, I'd be very interested in elaboration here.
I just want to plant a flag here that you've responded that you disagree with my position as outlined above. And you can disagree, but you'll need to have good reason to. This should not be a similar to two sides of the debate on whether the Yankees should have kept Derek Jeter on the team, and everything's just wishy-washy thoughts and feelings. I'd like concrete elaborations and explanations here.
Please don't take my words here as unnecessarily provocative, but please make sure your explanations are not circular, do not fall into special pleading and take into account Orthodox Judaism as opposed to all other superstitions.
It's only a problem because you don't seem to know how conclusions are supposed to be achieved.
You're supposed to reach them by arriving, not by decree. When you arrive at solutions by examining how best to assess things, you can get great results, but they may not conform to your desires.
You desire to have a specific outcome. So do most religious people. And when reason prevents them from getting there, instead of following the route the information leads them on, they want to specify the destination and either backfill with unsatisfactory explanations or just ignore it.
And yes, it's unsettling and even boggling to consider that the thing you cherish most has no good basis. It's quite disturbing to find that the thing you've dedicated your life to was an illusion all along.
Do you not recognize how you have nothing of substance to respond? That each response is just demonstrating more and more the foolishness of the position you hold?
Please allow me to share with you a private comment I received from a reader:
"They are clearly arguing against you and not your ideas. But not you specifically...just you because you are the one challenging their ideas. They will argue against and attack any person challenging them. Never their ideas. Because the ideas don't have responses."
I've responded multiple times, and every time I do you go into a tangent about how I'm stuck in a cult and I'm breaking rules and why should god care if Im eating cheeseburgers. its wild.
Agreed, the "debate" was quite awful. I believe the youth of today would call it "cringe-worthy" from a Orthodox perspective. I noted this back in oct. 2012:
Aside from the accusation that part of RD's book was anti-Semitic (I concede that was very strange), which parts did you find cringeworthy? (bear in mind that I only watched the first 30 minutes)
What was cringe-worthy from the Orthodox perspective is how Rabbi Sacks is pandering to Dawkins and to science in general. He confines Judaism to morals an ethics and philosophy and retreats from anything the Torah has to say about physical reality or even ancient history.
And when Dawkins pounces on the morality of the Bible and the seeming immorality of certain narratives like Akeidas Yitzchak, Rabbi Sacks retreats even further and horribly distorts the moral lesson of the Chumash to be more palatable to a modern audience.
The essay "Judaism Examined: Universal Acid" presents a comprehensive atheistic critique of religious belief, particularly Orthodox Judaism. While the author makes many confident assertions about the irrationality of religious belief, there are several philosophical and logical grounds for belief in God that the essay overlooks or dismisses too quickly.
The Rational Basis for Theistic Belief
1. The Cosmological Argument
One of the most enduring philosophical arguments for God's existence is the cosmological argument, which the essay doesn't address. This argument, in its various forms, contends that contingent existence requires an explanation. The universe, being contingent rather than necessary, requires a cause outside itself - what philosophers call a necessary being. This doesn't immediately prove the God of Judaism, but it establishes the rational basis for belief in a necessary first cause.
2. The Fine-Tuning Argument
Modern physics has revealed that numerous physical constants in our universe appear precisely calibrated to allow for the existence of complex life. The probability of these constants randomly falling within the narrow ranges that permit life is extraordinarily small. This fine-tuning suggests either an immense multiverse (itself requiring explanation) or a purposeful designer.
3. The Moral Argument
Objective moral truths require grounding in something beyond human convention. Without God, moral claims become merely expressions of cultural or personal preference rather than statements about objective reality. The existence of objective moral truths (that genocide is wrong regardless of cultural norms, for example) suggests a transcendent source of moral value.
4. The Argument from Consciousness
The emergence of consciousness from purely physical processes remains deeply mysterious. The essay dismisses this as a "gap" that science will eventually fill, but this misunderstands the nature of the problem. The challenge isn't merely explaining neural correlates of consciousness but explaining how subjective experience emerges from physical processes at all - what philosophers call the "hard problem of consciousness."
Logical Fallacies in the Essay
1. False Equivalence
The essay repeatedly equates belief in God with belief in unicorns, fairies, and the "Navajo Black God." This commits the fallacy of false equivalence. The philosophical arguments for God's existence as a necessary being, first cause, or ground of moral value have no parallel in arguments for these other entities. This comparison trivializes sophisticated philosophical traditions spanning thousands of years.
2. Straw Man Arguments
The essay characterizes religious belief as primarily emotional, irrational, and based on indoctrination. This misrepresents the rigorous philosophical traditions within Judaism, Christianity, and other faiths. Many believers hold their convictions based on philosophical reasoning, not merely cultural conditioning.
3. Appeal to Authority
While criticizing religionists for this fallacy, the essay repeatedly invokes the authority of the "gedolim" like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett. The author implies their arguments are compelling largely because these thinkers are "clear" and "sharp," which itself constitutes an appeal to authority.
4. Begging the Question
The essay assumes methodological naturalism (the view that only natural explanations are valid) without justifying this philosophical position. It then uses this assumption to dismiss supernatural explanations as irrational. This circular reasoning begs the question by assuming what it needs to prove.
5. Category Error
The essay treats God as though He were an object within the universe subject to scientific verification, rather than the ground of being itself. This fundamentally misunderstands classical theism, which views God not as "a being" but as Being itself - the necessary foundation for contingent existence.
6. Hasty Generalization
The author generalizes from a small sample of Substack conversations to make sweeping claims about the quality of all religious reasoning, committing the fallacy of hasty generalization.
Conclusion
Belief in God can be rational and evidence-based, though the evidence differs in kind from scientific evidence for physical objects. Philosophical reasoning about causation, fine-tuning, consciousness, and moral values provides rational grounds for theistic belief that the essay fails to adequately address.
The essay's central claim - that religion persists solely due to indoctrination and emotional comfort - overlooks the substantial intellectual traditions within religious thought. Many philosophers and scientists throughout history and today have found the evidence for God's existence compelling on rational grounds.
Ultimately, while the author presents his atheistic position as the only rational stance, this view itself rests on controversial philosophical assumptions about the nature of evidence, reality, and knowledge that remain open to legitimate debate in philosophical circles.
I think the only points here that have merit are #4 and #5.
>>>4. Begging the Question
>>>The essay assumes methodological naturalism (the view that only natural explanations are valid) without justifying this philosophical position. It then uses this assumption to dismiss supernatural explanations as irrational. This circular reasoning begs the question by assuming what it needs to prove.
>>>5. Category Error
The essay treats God as though He were an object within the universe subject to scientific verification, rather than the ground of being itself. This fundamentally misunderstands classical theism, which views God not as "a being" but as Being itself - the necessary foundation for contingent existence.
It appears that these two clash. The secular perspective maintains that we can only perceive what we can, and that which we do is what we can comment on. To posit other things would be an illegal move. Out-of-bounds, off-sides, whatever sports reference we'd like to make. How can we talk about the nature of an angel's wing or the number of toes on a demon's chicken-like foot when we have no verifiable observation or experience of such things?
And so the position of secularism is to say that we will believe in chicken-footed demons when we see them. When we know of them. Stories about them are simply insufficient.
The #4 argument here is that this itself is a logical fallacy known as "begging the question" because we are boxing ourselves in, forcing a metaphysical example to be, well, physical. I agree. That is what the secular approach does. But insofar as the religious view seems to merely posit its supernatural claims into existence from no verifiable observation or experience, it complains that it's stories are not being properly considered, but how can they demonstrate that it's not just merely a bunch of stories?
It's like asking the defense to respond to the testimony while the prosecution refuses to answer how said testimony could have been produced because we have no record of anyone having been at the scene. The prosecution refuses to explain how testimony could have been produced, but wants the testimony to be refuted anyway. The default should be that claims made without evidence should be rejected without evidence. The burden of proof, in other words, is being shifted.
So, yes, secularists demand that all observations be observable. But if they are not observable, then how does the religionist claim to know? It seems much more plausible that these are just stories and the reluctance to admit that based on indoctrination, especially given all the rest of the equally unjustified stories are not just ignored but not even bothered to be heard about...because of the ethnic bias that Orthodoxy is a special nation chosen by god, and obviously the Indian gurus who do magic tricks are just con artists.
#5 dovetails into this. Isn't it begging the question to claim that the thing religionists want to claim cannot be seen or heard? And yet we can know so much about them. These claims are bold (high on the specificity of details, and a vast many of them) but they are weak (low on evidence and highly implausible).
In summary, secularists beg the question that everything known must be able to be known somehow, and religionists have a problem with that because they want to claim that they know things that we just can't know. Like what happens after we die. How many gates must we pass through, who will be guarding the gate and checking the roster of permissible attendees at the party inside, how long each purported soul will remain at each level of hell before it's provided with access to grace, which prayers will help which soul, who remains in hell for longer based on which religiously oriented felonies or misdemeanors were committed, etc.
None of this is accessible, and so the secularist is compelled to reply: "nice story." But the religionist responds: "you are being hard-headed, erroneously thinking that the only way to know things is to see them or cross examine the witnesses who have reported seeing them."
It does seem like a stand-off, but the burden of proof lies on the claimant, not the rejector of the insufficiently justified claims.
Yes, but that's a problem for the claimant. The one with the claim needs sufficient evidence.
I make no hard assumptions. But there is no analog here to communications from beyond in spilled ink. Your analogies and your stories are just not enough. Because we have many other stories which you yourself do not accept. This is why we have goofball arguments for half of what you need and nothing for the rest.
This is unlike the scientific endeavor of curing cancer. We are so far pretty good with prostate, getting better every day with breast and still way off when it comes to pancreatic. That's because it's an ongoing process and we can only find the puzzle pieces when we do. There's no plan.
But you actually said "I'm trying to get you at least to accept this and then we can discuss the other half." (Paraphrased)
You don't have even half your argument built but you're already believing in all of it. You can just marvel at the wonder you see in the universe and leave it at that. To suggest that you need to have all the letters written in your scroll in order or else it's no good or doesn't work is going way too far. The entire endeavor of religion is tofasta merubah.
This is entirely unconvincing even to those who claim to be convinced, and if it weren't for indoctrination there'd be nothing promoting this over that. But it's very emotional because this becomes our identity. We want it so badly to be true. But that is unfortunately immaterial.
I have no clue what you are trying to say. We are discussing design in the universe. I literally quote you in my response post. Most of the arguments are arguments made by you to me.
>>>The problem is that all evidence is dismissed as not being enough evidence.
It's because all of your evidence is bad or non-existent. You are complaining but the problem is on your side. It's like complaining that the vending machine isn't taking your ripped dollar. The problem is the dollar, not the machine.
>>>As I explain in my story. You are assuming the conclusion
That's where you are incorrect. I am assuming nothing. I am open minded. The religious view is the one that's arrogant and closed minded.
Secularism is open to all evidence, good and bad, big and small. You It hears it, weighs it and analyzes it. What's good is accepted and what's bad is cast aside.
Do you know what they call alternative medicine that has been shown to work properly? They just call it medicine. Rationalism accepts all good and strong data. If religion was rational, it would be included. You complaining about it, you calling people 'retarded' and 'autistic' and giving bad arguments like "where else does morality come from?" or "how do you know your wife loves you?" isn't good enough.
It's all an emotional response to a tough problem that you face: the dissolution of your cherished identity by the universal acid of good questions. And the only reason you're in this situation is because of indoctrination. You can't otherwise arrive at your position, and that's why you are having such trouble accepting these arguments. You arrived without evidence, and so evidence is having no effect on your thinking. How can your position be debunked? You didn't see something that data can show to be false or misinterpreted. Rather, you arrived there because you love it and you want it. Well, you still love it and you still want it, and so you accuse everyone else of everything you can think of but never internalize that your position is hypocritical and inconsistent and just plain silly.
But I'm not here for you. You are just a foil. I'm here to help the silent audience who have good questions but actually want good answers and actually care if what they believe is true. And they are messaging me privately because they didn't know how to think clearly until they read these discussions. So thank you for engaging. I think you're too antagonistic for the tone your position permits, but I imagine you don't care what I think.
For your section by Plonis Almonis. Granted saying you trust people isn’t objective evidence for something, it is evidence for someone to believe in the truth claims of Judaism. It’s like saying you don’t know enough about medicine, but 10 respected doctors told me X is the right course of action. It’s likely good evidence to believe that it’s the best course of action even if it isn’t a good argument for an objective case to show the proposition is true.
>>>10 respected doctors told me X is the right course of action
It's easy to fall prey to trusting the wrong people, which is why it's not a good path toward truth. I'm sure you can find 10 rabbis who think they are honest brokers, but I'm also sure you can find 10 imams who think they are honest brokers. And 10 Protestant ministers and 10 Hindu pandits.
Now that we've established that everyone can call charismatic preachers from their respective faiths, lets see if any of them have good reasons to substantiate their beliefs. And they don't. Note, please, how all the comments here will be vague, resentful, angry or absent.
So to clarify, since it’s “easy to fall prey to trusting the wrong people”, you think trust is a bad epistemic tool? And one shouldn’t trust doctors, rabbis, ministers, or friends?
Yes, trust is a really bad epistemic tool. I suggest you look up Matt Dillahunty on this topic. Since you can trust anyone if you choose to, and there's nothing you can't accept on faith, faith and belief and trust are not good epistemic tools. A good tool would reduce both type 1 and type 2 errors, and as we find better and better tools (ones that are better at reducing both types of error) we choose the better tools and leave the inferior tools to the side.
Depending on what's at stake, bad tools can still be helpful. Certainly having a very well trained Army Ranger or seasoned Secret Service SWAT team at the gate would be better than a TSA agent who took a 120-hour course. But it's too expensive and TSA agents do a good enough job. But we didn't just decide that they do a good enough job. We tested it. The reason why it's not a 20K hr course is because it's been shown to be good enough, and so we say it's good enough. Science just finds its own level.
I'm sure you could trust people for certain things that don't require much. So I would trust a rabbi that he has a blue shirt. It's a mundane claim. But I don't trust a rabbi that there's a god because he can't give a better answer than anyone here. And we trust doctors that they know what they're talking about until they show that they don't know enough. And then we send them, through the filter of capitalism, to work in the Medicaid clinics, while the ones who know what they are doing (or can fake it very well) can go work in private clinics and earn half a million dollars a year.
I want to hone in on the example of medicine because I think we both agree that medicine can have a lot at stake.
Are you saying that if 10 respected doctors say that if Joe doesn’t amputate his leg, he will almost definitely die, that Joe shouldn’t accept the proposition that “if I don’t amputate my leg, I will almost definitely die”?
It will depend on why they say it. Ten Orthodox Jewish doctors will say that if you don't hurry up and daven mincha, it'll get too late you and you won't be able to do it and then you'll have to do תשלומין for mariv. And ten Muslim doctors will probably say something similar yet completely unacceptable to an Orthodox Jew.
Just because doctors know some things that laymen don't doesn't mean that they are always correct. They just have more information and they might know how to get more even if they don't have it. There are no authorities in science, just experts.
In regard to your specific proposition about amputations, with the introduction above, it'll depend on why the doctors are saying that. Are they aware of the latest variety of treatments? Ultimately, the tissues of the leg and the microorganisms in play and the ischemic damage already sustained, etc do not know about the doctors. And often times, we can't even evaluate the situation at hand, either because the information isn't available or in order to gain the information necessary, we'd need to destroy the leg. So lots of times, the prognosis of this individual leg is based on completely unrelated instances of what are deemed similar circumstances, and if in those situations we've studied those cases and determined that without leg removal there's an 87% chance of patient fatality, then we would probably see the situation you propose: that 10 doctors say that he needs to do it or he might die. But when they're wrong (in the sense that he doesn't die), they weren't really wrong (because they didn't say that he'd die, only that he will almost definitely die). Science defines itself in that way, irrespective to what we say or how we think.
Ultimately, with 50 or 100 or 500 more years of vascular, immune or other research, we might discover more ways to sharpen prognosis. It could be that 10 doctors are wrong and it's an unfortunate gamble that we need to take now and can't wait around to see what happens and then opt for a do-over.
The difference here is that medicine is a science, whereas theology is a field that studied something that doesn't actually exist. Doctors change their minds all the time because science changes its mind all the time and that's because with new findings, the way we used to do things becomes obsolete. But not so with religion. Religion is way too sure of itself in a way that doesn't scale at all with the information it has available about the claims it wants to make. This should be obvious, and so the analogy, which at first glance might appear solid, is really a bad one in my estimation.
And it amounts to special pleading, because as I've explained above, none of the rabbis are arriving at their conclusions from anything other than having been indoctrinated themselves. And all the "experts" who have been indoctrinated in something else are just called priests or ministers or imams, and then Orthodox Jews don't have to listen to them, no matter how many of them there are or how respected in their fields they are.
I’m a little confused about your response about the amputations. I’m not giving some complicated hypothetical. Simply- someone who has average knowledge about medicine is in a situation where they don’t know any of the medical jargon that you spoke about and wouldn’t know how to assess it because they don’t know enough about medicine. They are told some words about infections and titers and numbers and such that they have minimal understanding. An average case. And 10 respected doctors in the field say to amputate or else it’s extremely likely they will die.
What should this persons stance be towards the proposition that “it’s extremely likely I will die if I don’t amputate”? High credence? Low credence?
>>>your subjective appraisal of your friends trustworthiness and intelligence, whether to accept their testimony, coupled with other factors (are you in a desert during the dry season or a jungle during a monsoon)
Is it fair to restate that you are doing above as establishing:
a) the friend's credibility
b) the level of credibility demanded
I'm ok with this so far.
>>>Yehuda's argument is that only empirical evidence suffices to determine whether something is true.
Well, I think what I'm saying is that since
a) there is an absence of friends to testify and be crossed examined
b) the level of credibility demanded is the highest level possible
I think we're looking for empirical evidence because with of this colossal mismatch. The magnitude of evidence necessary to justify a belief in the supernatural is greater than anything you could imagine; think dog vs. dragon and blue shirt vs. invisible shirt. And there is no testimony here. There's just a report of testimony. The Torah is the claim in its entirety, and there's no justification to accept it as truth. The Kuzari principle is a non-starter because it's no difference than Matthew 8:1-4, as follows:
1 When he came down from the mountain, great crowds followed him.
2 And behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.”
3 And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
4 And Jesus said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to them.”
The Torah says there were 600,000 Jews at Sinai, but this was only males between the ages of 20-60. Most then figure there were about 2,000,000 total people. But what if there were only 600,000 total? What about 300,000 total? What about 50,000 total?
How many people are necessary to testify? Well, we have zero. It's a story about 2M people. None of them gave testimony. And one book with dubious claims about miracles and ahistorical events is not to be trusted when it makes absurd claims without sufficient evidence. Have you ever read Matthew? It doesn't say how many people were in the "great crowds" when Jesus performed this miracle. Was it 500 or 1,000 or 2M people? When the Catholics claim there was a Miracle of the Sun, how many were there? 30K or 100K? No one really knows. As Sam Harris mentions, Sathya Sai Baba was an Indian Hindu deity in human form and thousands of people who are alive today have testified about his miracles. Do any Orthodox Jews care about what it says in Matthew? No. Do any of them care about the Miracle of the Sun? No. How about Sai Baba? No. Why?
Because the reason Orthodox Jews follow their traditions and make the claims they do have absolutely nothing to do with the Kuzari principle or about mass revelation. It's because they've been taught as little kids that these stories are true, and then these little kids grow up and still think that magic is real and astrology is real and sorcerers are real and angels are real and superhuman strength is real and prophecy is real and there's someone really listening to prayers. This is why it's only in the last 30 years since Aryeh Kaplan that Orthodoxy has discussed these things. Before that, who discussed these things? There were no challenges from the wellsprings of internet information, and so there was no need to defend against it. I challenge everyone here to go ask their grandfathers and grandmothers if they heard of any of these things back when they were 5 and 10 years old.
>>>I also don't understand why he thinks that his view is objective rather than subjective.
Because I don't think contact has been made with the divine. Without information from beyond, how can anyone even consider that there is a beyond? What is everyone talking about? How can anyone think they know what happens after death or before birth? How can anyone speak of the supernatural or mystical or metaphysical, other than as a metaphor? Other than indoctrination with silly Jewish stories that exactly parallel the other stories that other people are raised with, and there's no way to differentiate between the different cases, other than this, what reason is there to think that any of this is real?
I'm not just asking people to justify their beliefs. I'm asking them to explain how they came about? Other than indoctrination, what is the filter that allows Hashem through and blocks Ganesha? It seems objective to me that religious people, whatever their stripes, are not thinking this through. Every claim that Judaism uses (holy and pure rabbis, an ancient tradition, a story about a multitude of witnesses, intricate rules, a lovely family life, kindness and peace-loving, etc.) is also used by other religions, and there's only indoctrination to explain how anyone can believe in any of this.
And when you ask people, like I have here, you get 85% nonsense, 10% tapdancing and 5% trolling.
I didn't mean "did you ever read Matthew," but rather, did you note the miracle claim there and do you care about it? And I find you to be an anomaly, because most other Orthodox Jews would not believe in those claims.
>>>I give credence to other miracle claims
I don't think you do. The sinaitic tradition is only seen as important and necessary necessary because it happened too long ago for anyone to have been there. But what if Sinai happened last week, because at one point in time, according to Judaism, it did. Would we need 2M witnesses? I don't think so.
Modern miracle claims abound and they are more impressive than Judaism's because they happened in the lifetime of people who are alive today. Maybe you'd argue that Judaism's claims are the best of all the theisms, like chatGPT claimed, but why is that? At time zero, there was no tradition and so what was so magnificent? I don't think 2M people are necessary. I think we'd like more than 4 people, but I can't put my finger on the specific number of witnesses necessary.
Why are you not a follower of Sathya Sai Baba, according to your own rules? He didn't just claim and demonstrate miracles, but he claimed to be divine. And thousands of people saw it and testified to it.
I think it's because all of this is just a front of the academic Orthodox. There's an ethnic bias we all have that prevents us from accepting the claims of those we consider other. This is included under the umbrella of indoctrination. I submit that you don't really care about any of this and that it's all backfill. You believe because of faulty indoctrination, and you're so intelligent and well informed that you quote me this genius author and cite me that genius' blogpost. But are they Orthodox Jews? They are not. None of their arguments are specific enough, and so ultimately, you're either arguing for deism like Ash or you're arguing for Christianity or you're arguing for Ploiniusism.
Your stated position is not the widespread position of Orthodoxy, and we shouldn't confuse that with a defense of Orthodoxy, because this is not their position.
>>>And in every era, Jews were challenged by and converted to other ideologies - polytheism, Hellenism, Christianity, to name some prominent ones. The Jews who converted to Christianity were no less sure of their new faith than you are in yours.
Christianity: Estimated at 2.5 billion followers
Islam: Approximately 1.8 billion followers
Hinduism: Around 1.1 billion followers
Buddhism: About 500 million followers
Judaism: 15 million followers
Orthodox Judaism: 2.24 million followers*
* (Orthodox Jews are included in total Jews)
Since we're not siding with the majority, I don't know why even the minorities of Jews that shifted matters. What matters should be clear thinking and nothing else.
>>>and consider there to be solid philosophical reasons independent of Jewish fanciful stories, for the existence of metaphysical constructs
That's a great question. I don't think you need to be duped by only Jewish stories. Many people tell many stories.
>>>or example, Feser, who is a Catholic, not a Jew
What exactly is your argument here? Are you arguing that you want to keep his idea of a god, but not the identity of his god? Isn't your claim that he's wrong?
>>>From my perspective, you have chosen a specific set of philosophers (Dennett, Harris et al) and accept their conclusions despite being an amateur in philosophy.
Oh yes, I would agree that I'm even less than an amateur in philosophy. But I don't think this matters. Religion makes scientific claims and to head off into discussions about Kant and Spinoza and Maimonides when we're asking, "how do you know god exists?" is, as Harris and Dennett put it, a nonstarter. When someone claims that they can talk to their dead wife or dead mother, of what use is Hume and Plantinga? So yes, I think Dennett said great things and thought great thoughts, but not because he was a compatibilist or a teleofunctionalist and not a reliabilist or an instrumentalist.
>>>You do not seek to steelman their opponents position, or even consider them, and simply rest assured that they must be wrong because your chosen set do.
I rest assured they must be wrong as a result of hearing them speak about things irrelevant and immaterial, like you do here. You seem to avoid answering direct questions and you quote all these Catholics and atheists who you claim support your view, and you seem to be here promoting Orthodoxy but you seem quite heterodoxical when you tell me that you believe miracle claims of other religions.
Judaism is essentially completely based on a miracle claim...that god spoke to his nation. It's really not good enough that Moses spoke to his nation, because let's say that MLK Jr spoke to his "nation," so why is that not as special? Because he was just a man, as was Moses. The special thing here is not that there was a speech on Sinai, as I understand it, but that it was a miracle.
But everyone else seems to have their miracles. And you come to say, "yeah, I'm down with that." I don't think there is a steelman here because I don't think your position is anything but flimsy backfill because you're holding on tightly to the way you were raised. It's nostalgia, it's comfortable and it's indoctrination.
>>>just like every other cultist, you don’t, or perhaps can’t, see it.
On the contrary, I'm a non-cultist. And all it seems you can respond to that is: "but my father told that his father told him that his father told him," but I don't believe your story because I don't believe your father's story because I don't believe his father's story. And you don't recognize that so many other fathers are telling stories about their fathers. Or that they themselves witnessed miracles in India, but you were raised this way and not that, so "me good, them bad."
Well, your parents never testified to me, and my parents never testified to me either. I'd like to cross examine your parents. Can we make that happen? I would private message with them each, separately, and then we can post the full interviews on your page, if you'd like.
>>>This is a specific argument that seems to describe a kind of Bayesian epistemology.
I'll admit to not understanding this. I've heard it before, I've read about it before and it's beyond my ability to grasp, apparently. I can try again and get back to you, though.
>>>What are the reasons that this is your chosen frame for epistemology, and what are the reasons that you have dismissed those who don't accept it?
I only do this (if you say so) because the people who I follow do it. Harris and Dillahunty, mostly, I suppose. And it makes sense to me, like ultimate clarity. I'm reading your counter piece now and will respond to that point soon.
>>>Second, it depends on what you mean by “supernatural”. In some definitions, and I think definitely in Jewish ones, the conception of the “supernatural” Deity is the simplest definition.
As Harris/Dawkins/Dennett say, it's a god who can hear our prayers and respond to them, if he so chooses. Having a dead grandmother who you would claim to hear prayers and responds to them, if she so chooses, is no different. And claiming that you will one day meet your dead grandmother is also the same. I imagine it's not difficult to misconstrue this as ill-mannered, but I don't mean it this way: Harris finds it odd that people suddenly become philosophers when they're challenged on what would account for a supernatural claim. He thinks it's obvious that all the things we observe and know about are considered natural, and all the things we find in fantasy and fiction are supernatural. So when you watch a movie like Batman, it's fiction because it didn't happen, but there's no magic. But for Spiderman and Superman, where the things discussed can't happen (as far as we know), this would be supernatural, and you'd need really good evidence to for that. Way more than just your father telling you that his father saw a flying man, because that's exactly what we have in regard to Sathya Sai Baba and I don't think any of you cares about him, even though we have living witnesses alive today in India who have met him and can attest to his magic powers. No one cares. Here's a quote from Harris in a letter to Andrew Sullivan from 2007:
In any case, the extra-Biblical evidence of Jesus’ life is not as compelling as you seem to suggest. As you know, there is no contemporaneous description of the ministry of Jesus in the Bible or anywhere else. And even if the historical record offered multiple, first-hand accounts of his miracles, this would not constitute sufficient support for the basic claims of Christianity. First-hand reports of miracles are a dime a dozen, even in the 21st century. Many spiritual seekers in India testify to miracles performed by their gurus on a daily basis. These miracles are every bit as outlandish as the miracles attributed to Jesus. I have met literally hundreds of western educated men and women who are convinced that their favorite yogi has magic powers. I remain open to evidence of such powers (and my openness has exposed me to a fair amount of abuse in the atheist community). But as far as I can tell, all of these stories are promulgated by people who desperately want to believe them; all (to my knowledge) lack the kind of corroborating evidence one should require to actually believe that Nature’s laws have been abrogated in this way; and most people who report these events demonstrate an utter disinclination to look for non-miraculous explanations. In any case, stories about mystics (and charlatans) walking on water, raising the dead, flying without the aid of technology, materializing objects, reading minds, foretelling the future are being told now. Indeed, all of these powers have been attributed to the South Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba by an uncountable number of eyewitnesses-and the man claims to have been born of a virgin to boot! He has literally millions of followers, many of them educated westerners. You can watch some of his “miracles” on YouTube, performed before credulous throngs of spiritually hungry souls. Prepare to be underwhelmed. And yet, you are suggesting that tales of similar events emerging from the pre-scientific religious milieu of the 1st century Roman Empire (decades after their supposed occurrence) are especially credible.
mishenichnas yehuda marbim b'sechel- His long comments and responses if anything help with clarity. I have benefitted a lot from reading his comments and have gained a lot of knowledge from his posts. While I am awaiting his response to your great comment, assuming his long responses to just be a "strategy" is missing the point.
1) Bentham's argument for theism’s high prior probability is not convincing because we have no basis for judging the nature of the universe’s cause. He assumes that ultimate reality must follow principles like simplicity and elegance, but we have no other universes to compare this one to, and no reason to assume that the cause of the universe is subject to the same conceptual rules that apply to things within it. Without a frame of reference, the claim that a “limitless mind” is the simplest explanation is entirely unfounded—we don’t even know if simplicity is a meaningful criterion at this level of reality.
Additionally, the idea that God is "simple" is highly questionable. Theists often claim that God's nature is beyond human comprehension, yet they simultaneously assert that he is somehow the simplest explanation for the universe. If God is truly beyond understanding, how can we be sure he isn't infinitely complex? The very attributes ascribed to God, omniscience and omnipotence introduce enormous explanatory difficulties. Reconciling omniscience with free will, omnipotence with the existence of evil all require complex theological maneuvers. These are not hallmarks of a “simple” theory but of an idea riddled with contradictions and intricate justifications.
Furthermore, he falsely assumes that we must choose between only two possible explanations for the universe: either a set of mathematical equations or God. But we have no idea how the universe came about. There could be possibilities we haven't even conceived of yet—our current knowledge may be completely inadequate to even frame the right questions, let alone answer them. Therefore, the probable stance is agnosticism regarding the universe’s origin. To confidently assert a specific God, especially one with the detailed attributes and demands of religious traditions, is not just unwarranted—it’s astonishingly presumptive. Even more troubling is the fact that religions don’t just propose God as a hypothesis—they demand absolute belief, punish dissent, and, throughout history, have killed people over these claims. If we are so vastly out of our depth in understanding the origins of reality, then the safest intellectual position is to admit our ignorance rather than dogmatically assert an unknowable deity as fact.
2) Regarding the testimony. One of the most fundamental mitzvot in Judaism is the commandment to recount the miracles of Egypt on Passover, with parents instructed to pass the story down to their children. This command was given directly to the people who supposedly experienced the Exodus firsthand, meaning there should have been thousands of personal accounts passed down. Similarly, the Torah commands not to forget the experience at Sinai—an event said to involve an entire nation hearing the voice of God. If these events truly happened as described, where are the records of personal accounts? While it's true that many ancient events fade from memory over time, something so foundational and supposedly witnessed by so many should have left at least some trace of first-hand personal testimony beyond later religious texts—yet we find nothing of the sort.
Additionally, I don’t understand the relevance of your claim about lineage. What does your family’s bloodline have to do with the events at Sinai? Do your parents have a tradition of where their ancestors stood when hearing the voice of God on the mountain?
And what do Kohanim have to do with this?
Even if we assume that Kohanim have preserved their lineage through generations, that does not establish anything about the authenticity of the events described in the Torah. A preserved tradition of priestly status is not the same as a verified testimony of divine revelation.
(It's also ironic how halacha treats mesorah. Despite relying so much on it, your example of Kohanim actually doesn’t hold up. Halacha is full of doubts and leniencies concerning priestly status for marriage because Kohanim today are not considered fully established as Kohanim with certainty. This is also why Kohanim are not permitted to eat terumah or challah, since their lineage is not proven to a sufficient degree. Likewise, when performing pidyon haben, people seek out a "Kohen Meyuchas" rather than relying on ordinary Kohanim.)
3) Regarding Matthew: Your few critiques (of which I have no opinion on) of Matthew pale in comparison to the vast number of critiques that Bible scholars have leveled against Exodus, drawing from other parts of the Bible, historical analysis, and archaeological evidence.
You "takeh" do remind of yeshiva guys arguing. Whenever someone points out flawed reasoning in a Rishon or Achron, it is often countered with:
It can't be!
It simply can't be true, since what was the Rishon thinking.
This type of reasoning gets one nowhere in life.
Yes. Often, we must choose between two sides of expert opinions. If you or the theist leaning philosophers have reason to believe we have access to the mechanisms of the origins of the universe, please share them.
More importantly, merely positing an opinion is not the same as acting upon it, and certainly not the same as making drastic individual and societal changes as religion does. It is only logical to remain passive in this discussion—not assuming anything concrete, and certainly not acting upon unverified claims.
Regarding Gottleib on Shabbos and Tefillin, these could have developed later rather than originating at Sinai. Many scholars date the Bible to far later than the alleged time of the Siani experience. The mere fact that Jews observe these is in no way equivalent to a tradition of slavery in Egypt or the Sinai experience. Am I missing something?
The concept of a "Kohen Meyuchas" is only a relatively modern hangup. And again the Kohain tradition is not honored in Halacha as I mentioned.
Regarding the Bible and Mattehw, the Bible (like your Matthew claims of which I know nothing about) also contains numerous internal contradictions. For example, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 present conflicting creation accounts, differing on the order of creation and whether man or animals were created first. The Torah gives two different sets of the Ten Commandments, with variations between Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. As for Shabbos, the reasons given for its observance are inconsistent. In Exodus 20:11, it is tied to God's creation of the world, while in Deuteronomy 5:15, it is linked to the Israelites’ slavery in Egypt. Meanwhile, Exodus 23:12 presents an entirely different rationale—that animals and servants should be given a day of rest.
Why not an ignorant one? I think most people should be ignorant atheists to be honest. At least average intelligence people should have epistemic humility and realize they probably don’t get the arguments for god very well even if they tried.
It’s like the field of medicine. Most people should be ignorant about what actually has research backing it and use other tools like trust to figure out what the right course of action is and the right beliefs are.
You can make up for average intelligence by due diligence avid learning learning from people that are smarter learning logic etc, my point is if you are going to write an article basically calling every argument for God and religion stupid then maybe some epistemic humility wouldn’t hurt
I completely agree with this last reply. I just think the most reasonable position for an average person who hasn’t spent hundreds of hours researching the arguments is to say “I’m ignorant so therefore I’m an atheist”. I think there should be more unsophisticated atheists like that in the world. That’s all.
If the argument, it’s more reasonable to say that many smarter people spent so much time looking at the arguments and until I do I shouldn’t accept it.
If based on intuition, then I think it’s unreasonable to make metaphysical claims like that based on intuition. What reason do you have to trust your intuition?
The existence or non-existence of God cannot be proven. Why are you so fixated on what side of the aisle folks are on? Truth? Yesterday’s truth is tomorrow’s fallacy. Be a good person. Religion should foster goodness. If that has not been your experience I am sorry.
>>>The existence or non-existence of God cannot be proven.
I would agree with that.
>>>Why are you so fixated on what side of the aisle folks are on?
I'm not so fixated on it. I merely presented to those who were pretending to be so sure that they are wrong to pretend. It's better to be honest.
>>>Truth?
After הבדלה, some people wave the flame out. Other people turn the candle over and dip the flame into the wine. Other people still blow it out.
When a person who does not blow it out sees a person blow out the candles, the former will often tell the latter: "oh, you're not supposed to do that." Why does he do that? Because he thinks that it matters how you extinguish the candle. But why? Because he was once told a story about it that almost certainly wasn't true.
Truth is important because it allows us to relate to one another. There's something objective that we're all relating to, all engaged in and all connected within. Truth is real and so it's important.
>>>Yesterday’s truth is tomorrow’s fallacy.
You probably think that this is a profound statement, but it's not. It appears to be a religionists attempt to undercut science, and it's a very harmful outlook. How many truths did you know yesterday that turned out to be tomorrow's falsehood? Did you car start running on water instead of gasoline? Did your flowers start living living on gasoline instead of water? Did souls start being lost because someone blew out a flame?
No. All of these remain the same, as do so many things that you know about and count on to remain constant. If insulin and metformin worked yesterday and stopped working tomorrow, it would be extremely surprising. But penicillin worked yesterday and will stop working tomorrow, figuratively speaking. Why? Because bacteria develop antibiotic resistance. The world is a real place, and with this comment you make it seem like it is not.
>>>Be a good person
Of course we should be good people. But you don't need religion for that.
>>>Religion should foster goodness
Well, it will certainly depend on what religion you speak of and how you define goodness.
>>>If that has not been your experience I am sorry.
Was this post intended as an emotional argument? You can do Judaism and you can be מקפיד on all the chumras, and you can be sweet and gentle, except when your daughter wants to get divorced and her husband refuses. Then we are not so nice.
But my position is not triggered by my daughter being stuck. Rather, I'm just here to counter the fallacious surety of all those propose to know more than they do.
Religionists often think that the reason why secularists do not believe is because they are hurt. But they don't believe because there's nothing to believe in.
Growing up within the confines of Modern Orthodoxy, I believed that open-mindedness was our secret weapon over the Charedim and Yeshivish communities. We were the ones who embraced science, engaged in debates with atheists, and valued higher education. In contrast, the Yeshivish world seemed rigid anti-college, a slave to their Roshei Yeshiva, and destined for a lifetime in kollel. It was us versus them.
But as I went through life, I realized that the real divide wasn’t between Modern Orthodoxy and being yeshivish; it was between believers and non-believers. Ironically, the very smugness I once held over the Charedim for being "closed-minded" was, in itself, a façade. I had been deceiving myself, believing I held the intellectual high ground, when in reality, I was just as bound by my own assumptions.
Having an open mind isn’t about engaging in controversial topics your rabbi would rather you ignore or giving dachuk answers to justify your beliefs. It means truly engaging with ideas, internalizing the arguments, and considering what it would mean if they were actually true.
You, however, fail to see that you are still shackled to the wall in the cave. Open-mindedness is only half the battle. Laugh all you want, but an open mind, without an intelligent mind, is merely an empty virtue.
Yes, I agree that automatically assuming you're right is ridiculous. And that applies to you as well. So why is the phrase, "All I ask is that you keep an open mind" so hilarious ? If anyone is presuming their assumptions to be unquestionably right, it sounds like you.
@ash @yehuda meshenichnas calm down on the personal attacks or I'm closing comments
"This is where the God-of-the-Gaps (GOTG) fallacy becomes evident. Ash is making an argument from ignorance: just because science doesn’t have all the answers (yet), this doesn’t mean we should jump to invoke a god to explain what’s missing. The missing pieces of a puzzle do not automatically validate the existence of an unseen, supernatural explanation. The “god-of-the-gaps” argument is a logical fallacy where gaps in scientific knowledge are filled with supernatural explanations, essentially concluding that "we don't know, therefore, God did it." This reasoning is not valid because lack of knowledge doesn’t imply an answer—it just means we need more investigation."
This is retarded. There has been plenty of time and zero progress.
This is Yehuda Mishenichnas: "We found unicorn hair, unicorn horns, we've had sightings of unicorns in front of hundreds, and people who drink the found unicorn blood stay inches away from death but lead a cursed existence. However, this doesn't mean unicorns exist! It is a "unicorn-of-the-gaps argument". We are essentially concluding we don't know therefore unicorns exist. This reasoning is not valid because lack of knowledge doesn’t imply an answer—it just means we need more investigation."
This illustratea what I call a Type-3 fallacy: Eliminating conclusions before looking at evidence. Yehuda is essentially saying there is nothing that could ever prove to him the existence of the supernatural because he eliminated that possibility a priori. Any evidence - even God himself appearing to Yehuda - can be dismissed as needing more evidence. There is plenty of evidence for something metaphysical. Quantum physics, free will, and consciousness are all good evidence that something exists beyond our physicality. You can a priori dismiss it or say your standard of evidence requires God himself to appear before you - but then again it is dishonest to say there is no evidence.
>>>This is retarded. There has been plenty of time and zero progress.
What are you talking about?
>>>We found unicorn hair, unicorn horns, we've had sightings of unicorns in front of hundreds, and people who drink the found unicorn blood stay inches away from death but lead a cursed existence.
Again, I really don't understand what you're trying to say here. Is this you mocking me? Is this you making an analogy? We have no good evidence for unicorns or gods. Perhaps you could speak clearly and directly so I can better understand the points you are trying to make.
>>>what I call a Type-3 fallacy
That's already included in a type 2 error of not seeing something that's really there. Can you please demonstrate or provide or even point to any of this evidence that you speak of?
>>>Yehuda is essentially saying there is nothing that could ever prove to him the existence of the supernatural because he eliminated that possibility a priori.
You seem to have changed the focus here, and I wonder if you notice. I wanted to point out to you, though, that I did notice.
You are worried about how we could observe evidence of the supernatural while apparently assuming that it already exists. And you fail to provide any evidence for why you already assume it, and you should be worried about this before you make these claims.
I find you very confused on these matters, Ash. As I said earlier, I don't think you're ready to handle the repercussions of zero basis for the beliefs you so cherish. This is why you shout and insult and say things that don't really make much sense. I see it as you floundering. And it's understandable.
If you're so inclined, you should put together a good response to this post. Let me give you some guidelines:
- please don't use the word 'retarded' (in fact, try to never use that word again)
- provide good reasons for why your belief is justified
- make sure that these reasons do not similarly justify competing beliefs
- ensure your arguments are not circular
- ensure that your examples and analogies do not become so convoluted that your readers can no longer make sense of what you're trying to say
- avoid silly comments
- avoid non sequiturs
- avoid feelings
If you can't do this (and I don't think you can), then you should ask yourself why. It will be because you can't, and that's because no one can. Until then, your comments don't amount to much because there's no substance. You should aim to differentiate a belief from a belief in that belief. I think you think you believe in Hashem, but when you can't explain why, then it's not real. If you don't know why, then it's not real. I think you do it just because that's what you've always done and that's what you're most comfortable with, probably living with your religious family. But I think you're just super comfortable with what you always thought made sense, and now that you've been exposed to these ideas, you're lost. I'm sorry that you feel this way, but once you've exposed yourself to this, there's no way to go back.
I believe Ash's point about unicorns was meant to be a parable or thought experiment about a possible scenario in which the horn and blood of a unicorn had been found. Perhaps it would be better phrased as "let us say that there is a town where people vanish more frequently than the national average. These people fit a similar psychological profile and have a similar appearance. A manifesto explaining the killer's motives was released online. There are no corpses, however, so some people conclude that there is no serial killer, and complain about investigations devoted to finding the killer. Instead, they say, the town should devote its resources entirely to finding alternate explanations until a corpse is found."
As to Ash saying "there has been plenty of time and zero progress," the Copenhagan interpretation of quantum mechanics is still the best we have, despite being thoroughly lambasted by Einstein. Decades after the EPR Paradox, we're still circling back to the Copenhagan interpretation. Similar things can likely be said about the other things Ash brought up, although I am not as well versed in them as I am in quantum physics.
>>>RESPONSE TO FIRST PARAGRAPH
I think we had something very similar to that. It was called the Bermuda Triangle (otherwise known as Devil's Triangle). And people ascribed all sorts of mystical explanations, until it was investigated in more detail and found to not amount to much.
What you're saying is: no, there can be a metaphysical explanation. Ok, but what would that mean, other than just asserting that there's a devil having his way? We can't see a devil, talk to a devil, know that he even exists. We see something happen and we ascribe it to a cause, and then all of a sudden, we know that cause's name and where he lives and what his favorite baseball team is. I also say these things as jokes, obviously, but not to mock anyway in a mean way. It's a rhetorical tool to demonstrate how ridiculous it is to suggest that there's a god who prefers prayers in Hebrew, but sometimes Aramaic. That he understands all languages, but angels only know Hebrew. And they each have only one job. And they have 4 wings or 8 wings or one leg, etc.
>>>As to Ash saying "there has been plenty of time and zero progress,"
I don't think Ash's comments have any merit and I don't think he understands what we're saying. I think he's very bothered and is fighting back, but he doesn't know how to have good discussions sometimes, and many of those bad discussions have happened here.
>>>RESPONSE TO SECOND PARAGRAPH
I'm not a physicist, and I don't pretend to have great familiarity with any of this. But it's really all distraction. Anything that we don't understand that's ascribed to a god merely sets up a GOTG, much like all the previously attributed earthquakes and thunder storms. These just do not rise to any argument at all, but religionists seem to harp on them for what appears to Harris and Dawkins as no good reason.
I'm pretty sure my arguments contained substance.
They didn't before and they still don't. Can you follow the guidelines I've laid out, instead of calling anyone or anything 'retarded'?
"The same applies to gods, ghosts, dragons, and fairies. While we can’t know they don’t exist, we also have no good reason to believe they do"
God creates a beautifully designed world, one where life can evolve from the smallest microparticle against all odds in a universe finetuned for human existence, with incredibly complex DNA and life that scientists still don't know how it formed, created consciousness and free will, still unexplainable via physics, created a universe seemingly requires a conscious observer to even operate (via quantum mechanics) and these can only be dismissed via tortured apologetics yet Yehuda Meshinachnas thinks there is no good reason to believe He exists just like unicorns!
This comes off as ridiculous and is frankly insulting. You may interpret this evidence differently (and I think if one does, they are being dishonest) but to dismiss this as evidence comparable to unicorns is even more dishonest. This is laughable.
>>>God creates a beautifully designed world
It's almost like you didn't read anything that I wrote. Here you go again making unjustified assertions. How do you know any of this?
>>>This comes off as ridiculous and is frankly insulting
When you believe in something for no good reason and someone challenges you, before you recognize that you even need good reasons, you will think the other side is ridiculous. It's totally understandable.
And as for insulting, yes, it's very insulting to have someone call you blind when you think you see better than they do. But if all you can come up with are insults and irrelevant discussion about quantum mechanics and DNA, it means that you're not ready to have these conversations.
I know you said that you've read all the Dawkins books, but I think you need to read them again. And this time, try to read them to gain information, rather than with a stink eye.
>>>dismiss this as evidence comparable to unicorns
I am trying not to call what you're doing here idiotic, but you're not even engaging the topic, Ash. You think there's a god. I know why you do: because you were fed Uncle Moishy when you were young. You think it's because there's something about your relationship with god that would be different if he didn't exist. That's what ought to be necessary for you to determine that he is real. Your relationship with your sister would be different if she had never existed, and that's how we know you have a sister (if, in fact, you do).
But if you think you're continuing to have a relationship with your great aunt after she died, you should be able to demonstrate the difference, or else no one should believe you. Where is that evidence for your god? You have none. And you should be upset about it, but that anger shouldn't be directed at me...I'm just the mailman. It should be toward your parents and your teachers, but then again, they were also duped. So it's a difficult situation.
Do you have anything of substance to say at all? Because I'd really like to read it.
Dawkins has to write five books to explain why the world is not designed. Thus, the default position is that it indeed is. You can dismiss that evidence like Dawkins does, but i do not because I do not find Dawkins arguments convincing. (I accept evolution, but the origin of life and the speed and system of evolution are both processes which appear designed because they create functional complexity where none should exist.)
Again, I don't really know where you're going with this. Yes, we already discussed how there's a superficial resemblance to design from a Designer. But upon further investigation, it becomes clearer and cleared that this is not the case. You should really read his books again.
There is no evidence. And even if there was (which there isn't), you can't know that an angel or a demon or a fairy designed it. So please stop wasting your time arguing about design, and provide us all with a really great and compelling piece of evidence that gets you to a god that listens to our prayers and sometimes answers them.
>But upon further investigation, it becomes clearer and cleared that this is not the case. You should really read his books again.
I disagree.
>
And even if there was (which there isn't), you can't know that an angel or a demon or a fairy designed it.
We can, if he revealed himself. But lets stick to the first subject.
If you buy the book and debunk it, I'd gladly let you guest post on my blog.
Ash,
I get a headache trying to understand your "rational" arguments.
I do not necessarily agree with everything that Mishenichnas argues, but by the way you respond to Mishenichnas' honest questions with Ad hominem and insults and you cannot seem to answer any of his questions fairly, made me want to make a substack account just to beg of you to give yourself some time away from posting. Please give yourself time to ask yourself some honest questions, such as what do you think you know and how do you think you know it.
To quote E.T. Jaynes: If you are ignorant about a phenomenon, that is a fact about your own state of mind, not a fact about the phenomenon itself.
If I were not already an atheist, I would consider becoming one just reading your arguments "proving" religion.
I thought this was a good post, but I will ask that you edit your opening line.
Your rejoinder is just as strong without insulting him, and maybe even stronger.
Lol
Lol. Keep in mind the ad hominems are after many many discussions and absolute frustration with Yehuda. Why don't you judge me by what I've written elsewhere?
"He compares the evidence for any gods (in terms of both quantity and quality) to the evidence for fairies and ghosts"
This is why Dawkins is a complete idiot.
As far as I'm aware, there has never been a fairy or ghost that has been claimed to have appeared in front of millions, revealed texts that have inspired billions and which have changed the world for good, and have passed on traditions that are claimed to be dating back to the origins of that revelation. (For that matter, there has never been a fairy or ghost that has been resurrected in front of hundreds).
You can dispute that evidence and do it logically. But comparing it to fairies or ghosts is dishonest, laughable, and untrue.
>>>This is why Dawkins is a complete idiot.
Did you even read what I wrote? You seem to be a caricature of the proverbial Orthodox Jew that I wrote about. Instead of hurling insults, please respond to any of the challenges. Don't just let off steam and anger. Provide good reasons why you think there's a god.
>>>there has never been a fairy or ghost that has been claimed to have appeared in front of millions
Your Kuzari claim is not evidence, but just part of your claim. You need evidence for it, my friend.
>>>revealed texts that have inspired billions
Where are these revealed texts? Can you point to even a single bit of information in the Torah that couldn't have been written by a bunch of men from that generation? Even 1 single idea that was beyond the grasp. Something about microorganisms or electricity? How about gravity? Relative strengths of acids and bases? Any good advice to prevent crop failures? I would think that somewhere between all the sacrifices and genocides of Amalek, the talk of witches and sorcery, of raising the dead and talks of angels and demons, I would think that there'd be even one amazing thing that would demonstrate that there really is a god.
But no. It's just fantastical claims and fantastical stories. Sinai and Elijah and blood and frogs. It's all fairy tales and if you're raised on The Midrash Says, you really thought this was historical. But it's not. You properly reject all the Navajo nonsense only because you weren't raised by the indigenous natives in pre-Columbian North America.
And to say that the bible inspired millions or billions, but that most of them got it wrong when they headed down the path of Christianity or Islam is very disingenuous. You are calling them people of the book when it's convenient, but not when I ask you why you don't follow their traditions. Your faith is clearly a bad joke and you are only confronting it now. I'm sorry, because I know it can be tough.
Now instead of just hurling insults or nonsense arguments, please give me good reasons to believe in the specific, actual god you believe in. Not silly responses like quantum physics or DNA that just as equally point to the Navajo god or a deistic god. Design gets you absolutely no where toward a god who listens to your prayers, so let's not waste time with that either.
I'm confused. Let's talk about something metaphysical happening.
You keep doing this, moving the goalposts towards this ridiculous version of what the Bible critics call Yahweh. I am not trying to prove anything more than something metaphysical and some sort of deistic designer. If you can talk about that, great.
But please stop bringing in specific details about God which are completely irrelevant to this discussion. I do not believe this twisted version of Orthodox Judaism you claim I do. The Medrash says? Lol. But you are the stereotypical new atheist, not even attempting to understand why others could disagree with you, coming across as autistic and keeping on missing the point. You think the God Delusion is accurate and Sam Harris some kind of sage, instead of realizing they may just be gaslighters or people who miss the boat. Incredible.
>>>I am not trying to prove anything more than something metaphysical and some sort of deistic designer
I find that a bizarre thing to do here, with all of these Orthodox Jews here. But ok. Yes, we can do that.
Please write a book, chapter by chapter, in response to Dawkins' books. I will play Dawkins and reply.
Luckily, it was already written:
https://amzn.to/43wMICo
I find his design argument very convincing. His moral argument much less so.
I Don't know anything about that book but judging by its cover it seems like it would just be echo chamber apologetics and not worth engaging in seriously. Correct me if I'm wrong
I think I've never seen his argument of design debunked well, without th spurious, "well one day science will find out."
This article sums up my experience with rationalism.
https://open.substack.com/pub/taylorforeman/p/why-i-am-christian-again?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=27kmtk
I read this the last time you posted it (or someone else posted it), and I still don't understand it.
I always wondered why gentiles became so convoluted when they tried to explain themselves, and now I know why. It's because I assumed that Orthodoxy was true and correct and never applied the same challenges consistently to Orthodoxy. Once you do that, it becomes clear that this is not an argument and neither is anything any Orthodox Jews speak about.
I don't think it was an unclear article.
Hey. Enjoyed your post!
My one critique is you may be conflating God and religion.
In my opinion it is reasonable to believe in an intelligent designer, or an original cause. While I’ve heard all the counters to the Kalam argument, none of them seem to state that an intelligent designer is unreasonable.
I do believe that the standard religious claims about the intelligent designer are unreasonable though. Revelation, divine scripture, prophecy etc all seem to run counter to any true understanding of an infinite, intelligent designer.
Even though Substack is open to the public, I venture to guess that upwards of 85% of readers here are Orthodox Jews, and so that's who I'm talking to. They do not argue for an intelligent designer, but rather the רבונו של עולם who is also the God of Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. The one who helped Joseph in prison, Moses at Horeb, Joshua in Gilgal, Shmuel in Mitzpah and Elijah on Mount Carmel.
Ash comes to argue for Deism, but why is he doing that? Is he a deist? Ploinus comes to welcome reports of Christian and Muslim and Navajo and Baba miracles, but that's not Orthodoxy.
So we can talk about deism, but let's not confuse reasonable limits for deistic thoughts for support for Orthodox Judaism.
I am doing that because I think that once you accept any sort of metaphysical existence, you've won half the battle.
The gap between the philosopher’s god and the religious god seems to be quite large. We can reason a being that is the uncaused cause. A being that must be truly unbound by anything we can conceptualize, because that being would be the cause of that conception in the first place. To ascribe “want” to that being, as all religions do, would be sacrilegious.
>>>We can reason a being that is the uncaused cause.
We can imagine many things, but until there's good evidence, we ought to reserve judgement. We can reason many things, but we can also fall into many, many traps where we think we see answers but there aren't, or we see we see true results but they are merely statistical anomalies.
So yes, the philosopher's god is a deistic god, which no Orthodox Jew is really ok with. Which is why these sorts of arguments are non-starters, similar to when there's a god vs. no-god debate and Shmuely Boteach is on the same side as an Muslim cleric and a Catholic priest. Like Harris says, religion is such a suitcase term, like sports. We have Thai boxing where you can get punched in the head and die and you have lawn bowling. Jokingly, he notices that they share very little in common other than breathing, and yet they are both called sports. So, too, with religion.
Any good evidence in support of Christianity that is also good for Judaism is not specific enough, and so insufficient for the Orthodox Jewish crowd. And any evidence good enough for Judaism (which we have yet to uncover), would not be good for Christianity, and so the entire set up makes a mockery of the entire discipline. That Boteach can't see this or didn't see this is telling, unless he was just trying to get on stage. But it still greatly dilutes his cause, assuming he's an Orthodox Jew promoting Orthodoxy.
>>>A being that must be truly unbound by anything we can conceptualize, because that being would be the cause of that conception in the first place.
The greatest being that can be conceptualized must actually exist, and so he must, and so he does.
Doesn't that just solve it? What a waste of all this debate and argument, when we could have just written this singular sentence.
We have many philosophical conversations that are irrelevant to a materialist. That seems to be the position you’re taking. If so then we can shut down all of these discussions and leave it that. Yehuda is a materialist and therefore no arguments of reason and logic matter, unless they can be backed up scientifically.
Regarding your last point, you’re being unnecessarily derisive and confusing as well. Are you deliberately throwing in an ontological argument that I didn’t make?
But I do agree with you. The conversation of a deistic/pantheistic/panentheistic god is irrelevant to someone that needs a practical application.
>>>you’re being unnecessarily derisive
I apologize, for I wrote that tongue-in-cheek, and didn't realize that it would come across otherwise until I just now see that offense was taken. I am truly sorry.
>>>We have many philosophical conversations that are irrelevant to a materialist...Yehuda is a materialist and therefore no arguments of reason and logic matter
But yes, the materialist wonders what the philosopher is even saying. How do you get past materialism. That's my question and my challenge all along. We can all ponder, but how do you get from thinking about things that could be real to justified belief that it is real? It seems so clear that when you're raised to find comfort in your religious upbringing that you just don't want to let go. How many people follow the religion of their parents? I don't have numbers, but it seems to be the number one determinant.
Why does religion deserve to be treated any differently than the drug trial that the drug company wants to be successful? Or the election that the candidate really wants to win? Or the baseball game that the coach really wants to win? There's a premise and there's a claim and let's see if anything touches the ground. Where does religion interact with reality, and I don't mean here the practice of religion, but the trigger to practice the religion.
Stories from thousands of years ago are unbelievable, given human's gullibility and fallibility when it comes to propagating tales. We have thousands of religions and the people who believe in one of them are atheists when it comes to all the others. But what separates one from another? Well, your priest and your rabbis tells you what does, but upon deeper inspection, it's clear that the priests and the rabbis didn't have all the information. Similar claims have indeed been made by others and the bible isn't as special as it was presented to be.
So when Sam Harris gets up to speak, he's not really telling you that he doesn't believe as much as he's asking why you believe. And he's swatting away all the bad arguments, showing you that you can't believe in god because you need him and you can't believe in god because you want him. You need to believe in him like you would believe in the truth of someone talking to their dead grandmother. He's asking you why you believe, and no one answers him properly, he contends.
I'll accept it when there's good reason to. Like I would need if you claim you talk to your great grandmother. Or that the Lubavitcher Rebbe is still alive.
I tried this approach with Yehudah off line and he was similarly dismissive. It's like he never heard of a divide-and-conquer strategy where you tackle the lowest hanging frut first and then work your way up to the higher, less accessable ones.
I personally think this is one of Yehudah's defense mechanisms for protecting his atheism. If you can't convince him to go from level 6 atheist to level 2 theist straight in one conversation, he ends the discussion and declares victory. How convenient.
I don't like declaring atheism to be a mental illness or because of psychological problems, but with Yehuda I'm starting to suspect that's the case.
I find it curious that all the religionists seem to complain about how the secularists think or talk or engage. Instead, religionists should confront the issues.
They don't complain that about everybody. Just you. It's funny how you extrapolate to everybody when the issue is you.
I respect the scientific method. I have defended the scientific method against those who would put the weight of "science" behind assertions that cannot be supported by the scientific method (such as one assertion I encountered that "science" had concluded that Stalin and Mao were not leftists, despite them, their allies, and their opponents identifying them as such; it was a No True Scotsman fallacy coated in an argument of authority of "scientists," and when I pointed that fact out, I was told that I, an Information Science major from a paternal line of engineers and scientists, didn't understand science). Newton, the formulator of the inductivist scientific method, in my opinion, is one of the greatest of the Wise Men among the Nations, standing alongside such great thinkers as Aristotle and Plato.
All of that said, I think the New Atheists, generally speaking, are guilty of the fallacy of presenting the scientific method as the only way to obtain knowledge, when really, the Scientific Method is, by design, confined to natural philosophy. It is not a useful method of inquiry for metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and other branches of philosophy that do not fall into the category of natural philosophy. This kind of thinking results in things like Pilot-Wave Theory and String Theory (although I think calling either of those things "theories" is an insult to the Theory of Relativity). What you in this post call "religion" and "superstition" are the result of mass inquiry into realms of philosophy beyond natural philosophy that don't require themselves to be dressed in the language of natural philosophy like Pilot-Wave Theory and String Theory are.
>>>It is not a useful method of inquiry for metaphysics
You are correct. But this is how they see it. Someone made a category of things with an unwieldy name like "that which cannot be investigated by observation" and to make is easier, they gave it the much more user-friendly name of "metaphysics."
Now, I don't know what goes in this category because I don't think we known of anything metaphysical. If we knew about it, it wouldn't be metaphysical, I think by definition. So let's say, that in the least sarcastic manner, one claims that there are spirits in the clouds that made it rain and spirits in the air that made the wind blow and spirits in the ground that made the grass grow and spirits in the water that made it flow.
There's something called the adrenal gland, and it secretes some hormones. It does so under neuronal control and hormonal control. Let's call these sources of control the masters of the adrenal gland. The master gland is called the pituitary gland, and to come extent, the hypothalamus can be referred to as the master gland of the pituitary gland, which itself is called the master gland. In summary, they hypothalamus > pituitary > adrenal is a system well understood by science, but of course, there's probably a lot more to understand.
My point here was to compare the two: a bunch of metaphysical spirits controlling weather and crop growth and whatever else against the endocrine gland system described in summary above. The difference is that the endocrine system is described, while the metaphysical system is fabricated. If there's no way to observe it, how can we say anything about it? You can't just say that since it rains, those spirits are active, and since the grass grew, those other spirits are active. If we can observe we can know, and if we can't, it's just wild guessing.
Why do we have to have such a convoluted overlapping of glands and nerves to explain the adrenal gland? The reason is: because that's what we find. We're not discussing evolution here, but just why this story has to be so complicated. The explanation is complicated because we observe it to be complicated. If we can't observe the various spirits in the clouds and the grass seeds, how to we know there's just one each? Maybe there's a slave spirit and a master spirit? Because we're being economical an parsimonious? Just saying that seeds work without spirits is the most economical, and so that's what we do.
You say that science is not a good way of investigation metaphysics, but what is? What method can you possibly use to investigate the un-investigatable? That's my question to you. And this is essentially the initial and entire problem with religion. That they want to have metaphysics but have no way of bringing it from the world of ideas to the world to reality.
We can use analogies and examples, and while some people welcome them, others (apparently) do not. So we can talk about spirits in the clouds and grass, and maybe those are strawmen, but I don't know what else to say. Maybe that's seen as silly and mocking in an unserious way, but I don't think so. We can talk about a secret train to a secret castle where people wave their wands and say incantations and it's all real and it all works. But at least in Harry Potter, it's real. Imagine if in our real world, it was claimed that the Harry Potter books and films were not just entertainment, but claims of something metaphysical. Ok, we're ok with claims. And lots of things we see in the universe seem to require explanation. And the religious people who believe in Harry Potter World say, "how do you explain all the weird and wonderful things that we see? Obviously it's Dumbledore! And do you see all the terrible things? That's Voldemort!" But there's no way to ever find Hogwarts or Diagon Alley, and no one's ever held a Galleon and no one can produce a wand that makes sparks and no one's ever seen a dragon or a house elf.
If there's absolutely no way to tell the difference between a real parallel Harry Potter World that we just can't ever sense vs. our world where we also can't ever find Hogwarts because it doesn't exist, then in what sense is it meaningful to talk about a real Dumbledore?
Harris and Dawkins say that it's because it makes people feel good, and when you teach this to little kids as though it's real, they grow up thinking it's real and it's difficult to dislodge these beliefs.
>>>ethics
I don't know what you mean by ethics, and we can discuss this separately if you would like
>>>This kind of thinking results in things like Pilot-Wave Theory and String Theory
I'm with you on this. I am not a physicist and do not really understand what they're doing with multiple universes and string.
>>>What you in this post call "religion" and "superstition" are the result of mass inquiry into realms of philosophy beyond natural philosophy that don't require themselves to be dressed in the language of natural philosophy
They don't think any inquiry is being made. They think indoctrination is in play here, where no one is actually interested in reality and they are instead interested in stories. And instead of engaging with these conflicting ideas with serious discussion, people call each other names and insults. Yuval Noah Harari will tomorrow admit that there's a gland in charge of the hypothalamus if we find one, even though every book says that it's the master master gland...because maybe we were wrong, and the way to undermine science, so to speak, is with better science. And Harari will also tomorrow admit there is a god, as soon as there's some good reason to believe in him. As would Pinker and Dawkins and Harris. The arrogance, they say, is on the side of religion, where people say they know but can't possibly because there's no way to confront or engage the things that we say cannot, by definition be known. Just presenting stories in books is not good enough.
Linking to my post here so that people here can decide whether Yehuda Meshinachnas quoted me fairly: (btw , Yehuda, a good debating tactic is to link to the actual articles you are quoting from. That way people can tell whether you are strawmanning or not. I always link.)
https://open.substack.com/pub/daastorah/p/why-i-believe-the-torah-is-true?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=33pit
Because I wrote this as a guest post under Simon, I sent in a draft that he posted for me under his name. That's why the headings are a bit inconsistent and there are no links. But I have nothing to hide and I apologize if you think I do.
I'm sorry. I Did not realize that.
Legend! Why can’t other people admit when they make mistakes?!
Here's a "simple" question that I believe would be very helpful to many people. There are very intelligent, educated people on both sides of this issue. Stripping away all the uneducated, flawed arguments, what do you think it ultimately comes down to that some intelligent people believe in a God and others believe there is no God? What is the core difference of opinion?
That is an amazing question. Perhaps I missed my mark, but that's what I thought I wrote about. And this is how Harris writes and this is how Dawkins writes.
>>>what do you think it ultimately comes down to that some intelligent people believe in a God and others believe there is no God?
I think religious people are captured by a wonderful vision of something they were taught by their parents and grandparents and teachers. Then they grow up, and how many people really think to themselves about what they really know, what they just think they know and what they're lying to themselves about? Hardly anyone.
There's a great video on YouTube where Dawkins and Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks speak. I thought Dawkins was amazing and Sacks came out the loser of the discussion/debate. And I really don't mean that at all as an insult. I just mean that he lost, and big time. His position was utterly demolished. Both overall and in particular, everything he said in favor of Judaism was completely ridiculous and it was a waste of his time, as he did a great disservice to Judaism. He made zero comments of value other than when he was conceding ground to Dawkins. Anyone looking for objective guidance could see that. Anyone who doesn't think about what they believe and why probably thought that he did a good job. But a good job at what? He was kind, yes. Gentle, yes. He was conciliatory and deferential and all the things a chief rabbi, and even a regular Jew, should be. But this wasn't a popularity contest and it wasn't a kindness pageant. It was a discussion of whether religion is true and he couldn't land even a single point.
>>>What is the core difference of opinion?
Whether or not one wants to be honest with oneself. And Lord Rabbi Sacks came across as someone who believes in fairy tales. For all his erudition, his position had zero supportive content. Not even one iota of justification. And this is not to say that he's not smart...of course he's smart! And this is not to say that he's unaccomplished, of course he is! And one can clearly see that he had מדות טובות comparable to Dr. Middos himself. But the only person he could convince was someone who's already an indoctrinated fan of his or someone who is not paying keen attention to the real point being discussed.
Notice how all of the responses were either insults or pleading to view the metaphysical claims in a non-scientific rubric. But what else is there? Science is not beakers and test tubes. It's not laser beams and rockets. It's just making sure that what you did worked for the reason you thought it worked. It's just repeated observation and noting what works and what doesn't. It's the only thing we've got. I don't know how you get off the ground at all thinking that you can arrive at a metaphysical approach when you can't even observe the metaphysical. It's just thinking about things but with no way to justify a new way of thinking. I am actually asking, what else is there? We don't know...so let's just say we don't know. But you don't need two sets of dishes and scrolls here there and everywhere if you don't know. The day you are concerned with avoiding Hindu hell and putting a coin in your grandmother's casket so she can cross the toll bridge is the day you should wear tzitzis.
I'm sorry but I think you are way off base here.
First of all, saying that religious people are religious because they haven't really given any thought to it is utterly ridiculous. I can elaborate why if you are interested.
2nd, I watched half the debate (I didn't have the time/interest to watch the entire thing). My impression was that this debate ended up having nothing to do with atheism vs theism. R/L Sacks was explaining his understanding of the world based on his belief that there is a God, and Dawkins based on his belief that there is no God. I didn't see any part where they actually debated whether or not it makes sense to believe there is a God - did they get to that in the second half?
I will concede that it was odd when R/L Sacks interpreted that chapter as being anti-Semitic, but other than that he sounded just fine to me.
(as an aside, did you not notice when R/L Sacks mentioned that he has read all RD's books? Don't you think he may have given RD's approaches some thought and despite that decided it makes more sense to believe in God??)
READ THIS SECOND
>>>2nd, I watched half the debate (I didn't have the time/interest to watch the entire thing).
What could be more important than the truth? You are crippling your position before you even begin here. You demonstrate that you don't care and that this is not an area of concern for you. But what could possibly be of greater concern? If one's entire life is built around religion, as most Orthodox Jews do, and that religion is false, what could be of greater interest?
There's no such thing as not having enough time. People make time for what's important.
>>>My impression was that this debate ended up having nothing to do with atheism vs theism. R/L Sacks was explaining his understanding of the world based on his belief that there is a God, and Dawkins based on his belief that there is no God.
Yes, and Sacks provided no reasonable basis for any of his views or claims. I've read his books, and he does the same there. He starts off as though you're already a believer and never provides a good reason to believe. It's a big problem.
>>>I didn't see any part where they actually debated whether or not it makes sense to believe there is a God - did they get to that in the second half?
Again, this should be the most important video for everyone to watch. All the secularists who didn't watch this are also at fault if they don't think this is the most important thing.
>>>I will concede that it was odd when R/L Sacks interpreted that chapter as being anti-Semitic, but other than that he sounded just fine to me.
Agreed.
>>>(as an aside, did you not notice when R/L Sacks mentioned that he has read all RD's books? Don't you think he may have given RD's approaches some thought and despite that decided it makes more sense to believe in God??)
No. I think Sacks feels stuck. Check out the clergy project.
READ THIS SECOND ;-)
>>>No. I think Sacks feels stuck. Check out the clergy project
It sounds to me like you've reached this conclusion by projecting your own feelings and assumptions onto others—something I’ve noticed in your approach. Of course, you can do your own cheshbon hanefesh to decide whether that’s accurate.
I fully acknowledge that we are all human, and R' Sacks was human as well, which means there is always an inherent challenge in breaking free from our default beliefs. I also recognize that many people believe in God without ever having given the matter deep consideration, just as there are those who do not believe but feel stuck in their position.
However, to suggest that almost everyone falls into that category is simply not realistic. I say this as someone who has given the topic significant thought and has encountered many others—some far more intelligent and well-read than I am—who have also grappled with these questions and still arrived at belief. And if that’s just within my own limited circle, it stands to reason that there are countless more.
The fact that you are fully convinced there is no God does not mean that everyone else has either failed to think critically about it or has secretly reached the same conclusion but feels trapped. People arrive at different beliefs through genuine, thoughtful inquiry, even if their conclusions differ from yours.
>>>It sounds to me like you've reached this conclusion by projecting your own feelings and assumptions onto others...
I've reached this conclusion by having encountered no good responses to the Harris / Dawkins / Hitchens / Dennett rejection of religion.
>>>I also recognize that many people believe in God without ever having given the matter deep consideration, just as there are those who do not believe but feel stuck in their position
Oh, granted, granted and granted.
But I thought that R' Sacks, being the erudite scholar that he is, in preparation for meeting with Dawkins, being the erudite scholar he is, would have prepared for exactly this sort of encounter, and even if his performance could have been lacking, his content should have at least been substantial. What's the purpose of debating and discussing a claim if afterward, you see that your claim lacks sufficient support, you just continue claiming it?
>>>some far more intelligent and well-read than I am—who have also grappled with these questions and still arrived at belief
Please have them private message me. I am keenly interested in what they have to say in defense of Judaism.
>>>The fact that you are fully convinced there is no God
I am merely firmly convinced that the only reasonable position to take is Dawkins level 6 on his 7 point scale: de facto atheism, much like you are likely firmly convinced that the only reasonable position to take on big foot and Loch Ness monster and fairies in the garden is level 6.
>>>does not mean that everyone else has either failed to think critically about it or has secretly reached the same conclusion but feels trapped
Everyone arrived at their conclusions for a reason. I want to know what that reason is. I suspect it's because they've been indoctrinated, and yet no one seems to give a reason that can disturb that suspicion. When distilled, they're all vague and weak and just not good enough to convince someone else who doesn't already believe.
>>>People arrive at different beliefs through genuine, thoughtful inquiry, even if their conclusions differ from yours.
And all I have been doing all along was ask anyone and everyone here to consider if they can explain what that genuine, thoughtful inquiry consists of, and explaining that it should amount to a gargantuan, puffed-up version of "I believe because I want to believe and I believe that that's sufficient."
READ THIS FIRST ;-)
>>>What could be more important than the truth? You are crippling your position before you even begin here
From the beginning of our correspondences I feel you have been consistently misreading me and my opinions (which is why I asked you about your social alignment)
This is another example, I'll explain. Your assumption is off for two reasons:
1) Just because you feel one should spend one's entire life searching for truth doesn't mean everyone else shares that same value. I have been searching for truth for around 15 years now. At the beginning of my journey I felt more similar to you, that I need to dedicate almost all my time to it. As I progressed, I became at peace with the realization and acceptance that absolute truth is probably impossible. I decided to do the best I can and live the best life I can within that framework. I still consider myself a searcher for truth and I assume that will continue for the rest of my life, but it is no longer an obsession of mine.
2) The reason I lost interest in this particular "debate" was not because I am not very interested in the "truth". It's because I didn't see much value anymore in this debate, they were each talking from different perspectives and it did not feel like a debate at all. I would bet you haven't watched every single youtube video that deals with God and Atheism, right? Is it because you are not intensely interested in finding truth? Or is it because some videos interest you and some do not, and others are not exactly dealing with things you feel bring out truth?
I sincerely hope you can concede then that my lack of interest in watching the full video does not at all cripple my position. If you cannot concede, then my sense is you do not communicate in good faith and you are not somebody I would spend time discussing this further.
READ THIS SECOND
>>>The reason I lost interest in this particular "debate" was not because I am not very interested in the "truth"
As I've written in the first portion of this response, I disagree. I think you're exceedingly interested in truth in all cases where truth matters, except for the carve out you've made for religion. That's what indoctrination does.
In 1997, 39 members of the Heaven's Gate cult committed mass suicide in an attempt to ride the Comet Hale-Bopp to the next world. I can't speak for Ploinus, but does he believe them? I also can't speak for you...do you believe them? Do you think it's unfortunate that they were all duped into this? Were they just a bunch of idiots? No. They were just so incredibly gullible. Just like followers of all religions. If you read the Wikipedia article, you will likely feel a senselessness to all of it, similar to how you'd feel when reading the Wikipedia article on Navajo religion, and as expose yourself to more and more religion stories and customs that are foreign to you, you will get a sense of how weird religion is. When you're raised in it, it doesn't seem weird to you at all. Just like bloodletting didn't seem weird to all the ignorants who performed it and had it performed on them hundreds of years ago. And ignorants is not an insult...it just means that people didn't know any better. In 1,000 years from now, we will be referred to as ignorants.
>>>I would bet you haven't watched every single youtube video that deals with God and Atheism, right?
You would make a lot of money on that bet. :)
But that doesn't mean I can't be or that I'm not intimately familiar with all the arguments made. Which is why I might come across as overly confident in these discussions. The discussions are not over yet, and I'm right now awaiting responses from both Ploinus and Ash on my most recent responses to their responses to my responses, but to me, it seems like we've gone full circle. My most recent responses to their positions are essentially the same: they are comporting their minds to align with where they want to end up, and that's called cheating. I don't mean that as an accusation, but I mean cheating like when we refer to cherry picking as cheating. I'm not saying that either or both of them (or you) are being devious or conniving, even. I'm saying that all Orthodox Jews, among all religious people, have been duped. And here are the reasons why I think so. And if the only thing one can respond after 10,000 words of discussion is: "well, you're only saying that because
a) you're so interested in truth. I am not...
or
b) you're an empiricism, but I am not...
or
c) you're not listening to what I am saying...
or
d) you're giving me a headache or please stop insulting me
then it means that these people have no good reasons, which was all that I said in the beginning. That was literally my initial comment. And after 10,000 words, we're right back there. Because as I've detailed above, you're all so very interested in truth in all other domains other than in religion. And you're empiricists in all times and places in life other than when you're davening מנחה or making tea-sense on ערב שבת, or any of the other times you close your mind, focus on the religion and ignore what you'd never ignore in any other activity, whether it's online banking or driving or cooking or plugging in your phone. You do what works and you don't do what don't works. Only in religion do we have blinders on.
>>>Is it because you are not intensely interested in finding truth?
I am more intensely interested than you might imagine. And I will listen to any video you send me and read any book you recommend. But just please recognize that after reading and watching as much as I have and constantly seeing the same bad arguments over and over, I don't trust that there's anything out there that will change my mind. I'm not saying that I'm not open to changing my mind, but that the counter evidence is just not forthcoming.
Look at the 3 most prominent serious contenders here: Shulman, Ploinus and Ash. Their arguments are all bad. Shulman wants me to answer how I can avoid missing out on reporting of something true that we just can't confirm anymore, like sighted people that have become extinct. He ignores the balance we must maintain when it comes to seeking truth by avoiding both type 1 and type 2 errors. Jordan Peterson makes a similar point when he is asked why he doesn't just accept transgenderism and think it's a great idea to call everyone by what they want to be called. He explains that some transgender claims are true (in that that's how they actually feel, even if we would call them mentally unstable) but that others are not real (in that they are just making claims for popular reasons). I am not interested in a trans debate here, but bring this up because he points out that we must be concerned about not just missing out on properly referring to real trans but also to avoid mis-labeling those who erroneously think they are trans. And this avoidance of both errors requires a balance, and sometimes we will make mistakes. It would be nice to bring both sensitivity and specificity to 100%. Maybe one day we will approach it so more closely than we can do now that it'll be considered virtually perfected. But Shulman's argument is not a good argument because Judaism doesn't say to accept Shulman's wager. It asserts, definitively, that this is true. So his analogy does not comport with Judaism's claims.
For purposes of brevity, since we are all awaiting responses from Ash and Ploinus in their respective conversations, I will refer you to there, and I can link to you privately if you wish.
>>>If you cannot concede...
I will concede that everyone has their priorities based on their desires and their free time, and that I cannot decide for you how much free time you should have to consider the priorities that I have. I just thought that this is the most important thing you could possibly have on your plate right now, considering how much of a grip Orthodox Judaism has over the life of an Orthodox Jew.
But this video is unimportant if the lessons one would take from them can be gained from elsewhere, and I think they can.
READ THIS FIRST
>>>Just because you feel one should spend one's entire life searching for truth doesn't mean everyone else shares that same value.
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm describing here, and it requires me to get very literal in order to elaborate, and so you ask about my social alignment.
When you're walking in the park, looking at the foliage, or perusing the films available (either on the shelf at Blockbuster 35 years ago or on Netflix last night), these are not examples of where truth is important. We are not assessing claims about the universe, and so truth is not a variable. There are many, many instances like this in life.
But when you're washing the dishes, there are many variables that come into play to define a good washing of the dishes vs. a bad washing of the dishes:
- water pressure
- water volume
- water temperature
- presence of soap
- surfactant capability of the soap
- viscosity of the soap
- density of the sponge
- force of application of the sponge
- number of times of application of the sponge
- direction of motion of the sponge against the dish
These are just a few that immediately popped into my head, and there might be more, as well as synergistic effects of two or more of these together that do not show up when only one of them is in play. What does a wife mean when she tells the husband that he doesn't do a good job washing the dishes?
- the dishes are still dirty
- it took him way too much time, even though they're all clean
- there's a big mess
We can continue the analysis, but I think my point is made. Washing dishes is something we mostly take for granted, but look how much science there is involved. It doesn't matter how nice you are or how much charity you give (צדקות וחסידות). It doesn't matter if you stole the soap (מצוה הבאה בעבירה). It doesn't matter if you wash the dishes on the wrong day (איסור רחיצה). It doesn't matter how you heated up the water (איסור בישול). All that matters are the things I listed and other similar things. For washing dishes and all other things where we make claims about the universe that are objective (the dishes are clean or are they still dirty), we take a very empirical approach. And we means everyone who understands that the universe is a real place. This is not theoretical. Prayer will not matter when it comes to washing dishes, and neither will proper intention. (Of course intention matters, but I mean to say that if all you have is the best intentions, it won't work so well if the water is cold or you have no soap, etc.).
So you say that "not everyone shares these values" but I disagree and have explained in detail why I disagree and even why I think you disagree. When discussing with Ploinus as to why he believes in this god but not the 10,000 other gods, he responded with a curveball: he DOES believe in magic and fairies and all the other 10,000 gods. This does not prove to be an insurmountable defense of religion, but it does modify my approach in response to his response.
Are you now going to say that you actually do not care about or consider truth when washing dishes or driving on highway when you have ladders on your truck? Of course you do, I would say, but since you politely protested that I strawman you or put words in your mouth, I would like to ask if you could please expand on this comment of yours, because I don't believe you.
My assertion is that everyone cares about truth when they are evaluating claims about the universe, and you respond that not everyone is searching for truth always. I am saying that there is a carve out where some people sometimes do not search for truth, but that carve out is not an exception because I was only speaking about times when we all do (or should) be keeping tabs on truth. That's all I was talking about. Claiming there's a god is much more similar to claiming that you have the funds to repay the mortgage you are applying for and much less similar to walking in the park and looking at the foliage.
>>>I became at peace with the realization and acceptance that absolute truth is probably impossible
I love this point! It's so important to consider it, but it's equally (if not more) important to understand that it's a challenge that is swiftly dispelled.
The fact that absolute truth is unattainable should serve as no obstacle in your mind and does not actually serve as any barrier in practice to pursue maximally attainable truth. As in my previously mentioned ladder on a truck example and in my present washing the dishes example, can we not imagine a better way? A more efficient way? A less costly way? Of course we can. We're always looking for better welding techniques and better screw designs to achieve greater preload and soaps with better surfactant activity, but when we get there, we'll just look past that to the next better thing. I don't think anyone feels this way, and I think we all want to use the currently available maximally strong grease-dissolving soap even though it's understood that it's a journey and we'll get to a better soap in 10 years or 50 years.
In other words, we all actually do seek truth almost all the time, and we never consider our inability to necessarily make an immediate jump to absolute truth as an impediment to accepting the best we can right now. As Maya Angelou said: "Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better."
And so, to suggest that this is a problem here would be special pleading.
>>>I decided to do the best I can and live the best life I can within that framework
Perhaps I'm reading your intention in this incorrectly, but do you mean that since you've considered the things you've listed above and saw no other way, you decided to proceed as you are?
If so, I would equate that with orthopraxy. If you can't find a good reason to believe, then you aren't actually believing. You can't trust someone you don't trust. It's a reaction, not a decision. You may act as though you do believe (or trust), but without the factors present to trigger such a reaction, you're just acting. And that's my entire point and all that I've ever been saying here. That there are no good reasons to believe, and so there are no real triggers here, and all people who consider these points have only two options: orthopraxy or non-observance. And you can act as a very fervent orthoprax. But if the janitor in your synagogue or your co-worker one day asks you about your belief in a sincere manner, the answer would not really be that you believe. It's that you don't know any of the things that Judaism pretends are known, and that we're just doing this because we want to. Which is fine, but it doesn't align with the tenets of Orthodoxy. Only people who do not think about what they're doing and why, who are living in a bubble and feel unfettered by reason and logic, or who think that these ideas and beliefs have been sufficiently vetted and passed with flying colors, only those people can be said to be truly Orthodox. The rest who have delved intellectually are at most loyal and dedicated orthopraxists.
I appreciate your thoughtful comments, but the length is overwhelming. If you’d like to continue this discussion, please keep your responses much shorter.
That said, I strongly disagree with the idea that there are no good reasons to believe. Belief is not a one-size-fits-all proposition—what convinces one person may not convince another, and the threshold for belief varies. Personally, based on both my own experiences (while fully recognizing the potential for confirmation bias) and my observation of a world that I do not believe could exist without a designer, I have come to believe in God as a being who is at least somewhat involved in the world.
Your approach treats belief in God as if it must meet the same empirical standards as a scientific hypothesis or financial claim, but that’s a fundamental misframing. People do not engage with faith in the same way they evaluate soap chemistry or mortgage applications. Not because they are being irrational, but because belief operates in a different category—one that includes personal experience, intuition, and philosophical reasoning.
Finally, while I respect your commitment to pursuing truth, not everyone shares the same methodology or priorities in that pursuit. That doesn’t mean they aren’t engaged in an honest search or that their conclusions are invalid—just that they may be looking through a different lens than the one you insist is the only valid approach.
READ THIS FIRST
>>>I'm sorry but I think you are way off base here.
I'm really glad to hear any and all opposing opinions on the matter. Can you perhaps specify what you are referring to, or do you think that everything I have written about is incorrect?
>>>First of all, saying that religious people are religious because they haven't really given any thought to it is utterly ridiculous. I can elaborate why if you are interested.
Oh yes, I'd be very interested in elaboration here.
I just want to plant a flag here that you've responded that you disagree with my position as outlined above. And you can disagree, but you'll need to have good reason to. This should not be a similar to two sides of the debate on whether the Yankees should have kept Derek Jeter on the team, and everything's just wishy-washy thoughts and feelings. I'd like concrete elaborations and explanations here.
Please don't take my words here as unnecessarily provocative, but please make sure your explanations are not circular, do not fall into special pleading and take into account Orthodox Judaism as opposed to all other superstitions.
Aron: why do you think people believe in God?
Yehuda: because they like fatlytales and lollipops.
You cannot have a normal conversation with you. It's boggling.
It's only a problem because you don't seem to know how conclusions are supposed to be achieved.
You're supposed to reach them by arriving, not by decree. When you arrive at solutions by examining how best to assess things, you can get great results, but they may not conform to your desires.
You desire to have a specific outcome. So do most religious people. And when reason prevents them from getting there, instead of following the route the information leads them on, they want to specify the destination and either backfill with unsatisfactory explanations or just ignore it.
And yes, it's unsettling and even boggling to consider that the thing you cherish most has no good basis. It's quite disturbing to find that the thing you've dedicated your life to was an illusion all along.
🤦🤦♀️🤦♂️
Do you not recognize how you have nothing of substance to respond? That each response is just demonstrating more and more the foolishness of the position you hold?
Please allow me to share with you a private comment I received from a reader:
"They are clearly arguing against you and not your ideas. But not you specifically...just you because you are the one challenging their ideas. They will argue against and attack any person challenging them. Never their ideas. Because the ideas don't have responses."
I've responded multiple times, and every time I do you go into a tangent about how I'm stuck in a cult and I'm breaking rules and why should god care if Im eating cheeseburgers. its wild.
Can you share the link of that youtube video you are referencing?
To avoid being blocked for spamming, I sent it to you privately.
If anyone else would like it, you can private message me, or simply google "Dawkins Sacks debate"
Agreed, the "debate" was quite awful. I believe the youth of today would call it "cringe-worthy" from a Orthodox perspective. I noted this back in oct. 2012:
https://slifkinchallenge.blogspot.com/2012/10/rabbis-in-retreat.html
Aside from the accusation that part of RD's book was anti-Semitic (I concede that was very strange), which parts did you find cringeworthy? (bear in mind that I only watched the first 30 minutes)
What was cringe-worthy from the Orthodox perspective is how Rabbi Sacks is pandering to Dawkins and to science in general. He confines Judaism to morals an ethics and philosophy and retreats from anything the Torah has to say about physical reality or even ancient history.
And when Dawkins pounces on the morality of the Bible and the seeming immorality of certain narratives like Akeidas Yitzchak, Rabbi Sacks retreats even further and horribly distorts the moral lesson of the Chumash to be more palatable to a modern audience.
Here's an LLM response:
Response to "Judaism Examined: Universal Acid"
The essay "Judaism Examined: Universal Acid" presents a comprehensive atheistic critique of religious belief, particularly Orthodox Judaism. While the author makes many confident assertions about the irrationality of religious belief, there are several philosophical and logical grounds for belief in God that the essay overlooks or dismisses too quickly.
The Rational Basis for Theistic Belief
1. The Cosmological Argument
One of the most enduring philosophical arguments for God's existence is the cosmological argument, which the essay doesn't address. This argument, in its various forms, contends that contingent existence requires an explanation. The universe, being contingent rather than necessary, requires a cause outside itself - what philosophers call a necessary being. This doesn't immediately prove the God of Judaism, but it establishes the rational basis for belief in a necessary first cause.
2. The Fine-Tuning Argument
Modern physics has revealed that numerous physical constants in our universe appear precisely calibrated to allow for the existence of complex life. The probability of these constants randomly falling within the narrow ranges that permit life is extraordinarily small. This fine-tuning suggests either an immense multiverse (itself requiring explanation) or a purposeful designer.
3. The Moral Argument
Objective moral truths require grounding in something beyond human convention. Without God, moral claims become merely expressions of cultural or personal preference rather than statements about objective reality. The existence of objective moral truths (that genocide is wrong regardless of cultural norms, for example) suggests a transcendent source of moral value.
4. The Argument from Consciousness
The emergence of consciousness from purely physical processes remains deeply mysterious. The essay dismisses this as a "gap" that science will eventually fill, but this misunderstands the nature of the problem. The challenge isn't merely explaining neural correlates of consciousness but explaining how subjective experience emerges from physical processes at all - what philosophers call the "hard problem of consciousness."
Logical Fallacies in the Essay
1. False Equivalence
The essay repeatedly equates belief in God with belief in unicorns, fairies, and the "Navajo Black God." This commits the fallacy of false equivalence. The philosophical arguments for God's existence as a necessary being, first cause, or ground of moral value have no parallel in arguments for these other entities. This comparison trivializes sophisticated philosophical traditions spanning thousands of years.
2. Straw Man Arguments
The essay characterizes religious belief as primarily emotional, irrational, and based on indoctrination. This misrepresents the rigorous philosophical traditions within Judaism, Christianity, and other faiths. Many believers hold their convictions based on philosophical reasoning, not merely cultural conditioning.
3. Appeal to Authority
While criticizing religionists for this fallacy, the essay repeatedly invokes the authority of the "gedolim" like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett. The author implies their arguments are compelling largely because these thinkers are "clear" and "sharp," which itself constitutes an appeal to authority.
4. Begging the Question
The essay assumes methodological naturalism (the view that only natural explanations are valid) without justifying this philosophical position. It then uses this assumption to dismiss supernatural explanations as irrational. This circular reasoning begs the question by assuming what it needs to prove.
5. Category Error
The essay treats God as though He were an object within the universe subject to scientific verification, rather than the ground of being itself. This fundamentally misunderstands classical theism, which views God not as "a being" but as Being itself - the necessary foundation for contingent existence.
6. Hasty Generalization
The author generalizes from a small sample of Substack conversations to make sweeping claims about the quality of all religious reasoning, committing the fallacy of hasty generalization.
Conclusion
Belief in God can be rational and evidence-based, though the evidence differs in kind from scientific evidence for physical objects. Philosophical reasoning about causation, fine-tuning, consciousness, and moral values provides rational grounds for theistic belief that the essay fails to adequately address.
The essay's central claim - that religion persists solely due to indoctrination and emotional comfort - overlooks the substantial intellectual traditions within religious thought. Many philosophers and scientists throughout history and today have found the evidence for God's existence compelling on rational grounds.
Ultimately, while the author presents his atheistic position as the only rational stance, this view itself rests on controversial philosophical assumptions about the nature of evidence, reality, and knowledge that remain open to legitimate debate in philosophical circles.
I liked this.
I think the only points here that have merit are #4 and #5.
>>>4. Begging the Question
>>>The essay assumes methodological naturalism (the view that only natural explanations are valid) without justifying this philosophical position. It then uses this assumption to dismiss supernatural explanations as irrational. This circular reasoning begs the question by assuming what it needs to prove.
>>>5. Category Error
The essay treats God as though He were an object within the universe subject to scientific verification, rather than the ground of being itself. This fundamentally misunderstands classical theism, which views God not as "a being" but as Being itself - the necessary foundation for contingent existence.
It appears that these two clash. The secular perspective maintains that we can only perceive what we can, and that which we do is what we can comment on. To posit other things would be an illegal move. Out-of-bounds, off-sides, whatever sports reference we'd like to make. How can we talk about the nature of an angel's wing or the number of toes on a demon's chicken-like foot when we have no verifiable observation or experience of such things?
And so the position of secularism is to say that we will believe in chicken-footed demons when we see them. When we know of them. Stories about them are simply insufficient.
The #4 argument here is that this itself is a logical fallacy known as "begging the question" because we are boxing ourselves in, forcing a metaphysical example to be, well, physical. I agree. That is what the secular approach does. But insofar as the religious view seems to merely posit its supernatural claims into existence from no verifiable observation or experience, it complains that it's stories are not being properly considered, but how can they demonstrate that it's not just merely a bunch of stories?
It's like asking the defense to respond to the testimony while the prosecution refuses to answer how said testimony could have been produced because we have no record of anyone having been at the scene. The prosecution refuses to explain how testimony could have been produced, but wants the testimony to be refuted anyway. The default should be that claims made without evidence should be rejected without evidence. The burden of proof, in other words, is being shifted.
So, yes, secularists demand that all observations be observable. But if they are not observable, then how does the religionist claim to know? It seems much more plausible that these are just stories and the reluctance to admit that based on indoctrination, especially given all the rest of the equally unjustified stories are not just ignored but not even bothered to be heard about...because of the ethnic bias that Orthodoxy is a special nation chosen by god, and obviously the Indian gurus who do magic tricks are just con artists.
#5 dovetails into this. Isn't it begging the question to claim that the thing religionists want to claim cannot be seen or heard? And yet we can know so much about them. These claims are bold (high on the specificity of details, and a vast many of them) but they are weak (low on evidence and highly implausible).
In summary, secularists beg the question that everything known must be able to be known somehow, and religionists have a problem with that because they want to claim that they know things that we just can't know. Like what happens after we die. How many gates must we pass through, who will be guarding the gate and checking the roster of permissible attendees at the party inside, how long each purported soul will remain at each level of hell before it's provided with access to grace, which prayers will help which soul, who remains in hell for longer based on which religiously oriented felonies or misdemeanors were committed, etc.
None of this is accessible, and so the secularist is compelled to reply: "nice story." But the religionist responds: "you are being hard-headed, erroneously thinking that the only way to know things is to see them or cross examine the witnesses who have reported seeing them."
It does seem like a stand-off, but the burden of proof lies on the claimant, not the rejector of the insufficiently justified claims.
The problem is that all evidence is dismissed as not being enough evidence. As I explain in my story. You are assuming the conclusion
Yes, but that's a problem for the claimant. The one with the claim needs sufficient evidence.
I make no hard assumptions. But there is no analog here to communications from beyond in spilled ink. Your analogies and your stories are just not enough. Because we have many other stories which you yourself do not accept. This is why we have goofball arguments for half of what you need and nothing for the rest.
This is unlike the scientific endeavor of curing cancer. We are so far pretty good with prostate, getting better every day with breast and still way off when it comes to pancreatic. That's because it's an ongoing process and we can only find the puzzle pieces when we do. There's no plan.
But you actually said "I'm trying to get you at least to accept this and then we can discuss the other half." (Paraphrased)
You don't have even half your argument built but you're already believing in all of it. You can just marvel at the wonder you see in the universe and leave it at that. To suggest that you need to have all the letters written in your scroll in order or else it's no good or doesn't work is going way too far. The entire endeavor of religion is tofasta merubah.
This is entirely unconvincing even to those who claim to be convinced, and if it weren't for indoctrination there'd be nothing promoting this over that. But it's very emotional because this becomes our identity. We want it so badly to be true. But that is unfortunately immaterial.
I have no clue what you are trying to say. We are discussing design in the universe. I literally quote you in my response post. Most of the arguments are arguments made by you to me.
What I'm saying is as follows:
>>>The problem is that all evidence is dismissed as not being enough evidence.
It's because all of your evidence is bad or non-existent. You are complaining but the problem is on your side. It's like complaining that the vending machine isn't taking your ripped dollar. The problem is the dollar, not the machine.
>>>As I explain in my story. You are assuming the conclusion
That's where you are incorrect. I am assuming nothing. I am open minded. The religious view is the one that's arrogant and closed minded.
Secularism is open to all evidence, good and bad, big and small. You It hears it, weighs it and analyzes it. What's good is accepted and what's bad is cast aside.
Do you know what they call alternative medicine that has been shown to work properly? They just call it medicine. Rationalism accepts all good and strong data. If religion was rational, it would be included. You complaining about it, you calling people 'retarded' and 'autistic' and giving bad arguments like "where else does morality come from?" or "how do you know your wife loves you?" isn't good enough.
It's all an emotional response to a tough problem that you face: the dissolution of your cherished identity by the universal acid of good questions. And the only reason you're in this situation is because of indoctrination. You can't otherwise arrive at your position, and that's why you are having such trouble accepting these arguments. You arrived without evidence, and so evidence is having no effect on your thinking. How can your position be debunked? You didn't see something that data can show to be false or misinterpreted. Rather, you arrived there because you love it and you want it. Well, you still love it and you still want it, and so you accuse everyone else of everything you can think of but never internalize that your position is hypocritical and inconsistent and just plain silly.
But I'm not here for you. You are just a foil. I'm here to help the silent audience who have good questions but actually want good answers and actually care if what they believe is true. And they are messaging me privately because they didn't know how to think clearly until they read these discussions. So thank you for engaging. I think you're too antagonistic for the tone your position permits, but I imagine you don't care what I think.
For your section by Plonis Almonis. Granted saying you trust people isn’t objective evidence for something, it is evidence for someone to believe in the truth claims of Judaism. It’s like saying you don’t know enough about medicine, but 10 respected doctors told me X is the right course of action. It’s likely good evidence to believe that it’s the best course of action even if it isn’t a good argument for an objective case to show the proposition is true.
Do you agree?
>>>10 respected doctors told me X is the right course of action
It's easy to fall prey to trusting the wrong people, which is why it's not a good path toward truth. I'm sure you can find 10 rabbis who think they are honest brokers, but I'm also sure you can find 10 imams who think they are honest brokers. And 10 Protestant ministers and 10 Hindu pandits.
Now that we've established that everyone can call charismatic preachers from their respective faiths, lets see if any of them have good reasons to substantiate their beliefs. And they don't. Note, please, how all the comments here will be vague, resentful, angry or absent.
So to clarify, since it’s “easy to fall prey to trusting the wrong people”, you think trust is a bad epistemic tool? And one shouldn’t trust doctors, rabbis, ministers, or friends?
Yes, trust is a really bad epistemic tool. I suggest you look up Matt Dillahunty on this topic. Since you can trust anyone if you choose to, and there's nothing you can't accept on faith, faith and belief and trust are not good epistemic tools. A good tool would reduce both type 1 and type 2 errors, and as we find better and better tools (ones that are better at reducing both types of error) we choose the better tools and leave the inferior tools to the side.
Depending on what's at stake, bad tools can still be helpful. Certainly having a very well trained Army Ranger or seasoned Secret Service SWAT team at the gate would be better than a TSA agent who took a 120-hour course. But it's too expensive and TSA agents do a good enough job. But we didn't just decide that they do a good enough job. We tested it. The reason why it's not a 20K hr course is because it's been shown to be good enough, and so we say it's good enough. Science just finds its own level.
I'm sure you could trust people for certain things that don't require much. So I would trust a rabbi that he has a blue shirt. It's a mundane claim. But I don't trust a rabbi that there's a god because he can't give a better answer than anyone here. And we trust doctors that they know what they're talking about until they show that they don't know enough. And then we send them, through the filter of capitalism, to work in the Medicaid clinics, while the ones who know what they are doing (or can fake it very well) can go work in private clinics and earn half a million dollars a year.
I want to hone in on the example of medicine because I think we both agree that medicine can have a lot at stake.
Are you saying that if 10 respected doctors say that if Joe doesn’t amputate his leg, he will almost definitely die, that Joe shouldn’t accept the proposition that “if I don’t amputate my leg, I will almost definitely die”?
It will depend on why they say it. Ten Orthodox Jewish doctors will say that if you don't hurry up and daven mincha, it'll get too late you and you won't be able to do it and then you'll have to do תשלומין for mariv. And ten Muslim doctors will probably say something similar yet completely unacceptable to an Orthodox Jew.
Just because doctors know some things that laymen don't doesn't mean that they are always correct. They just have more information and they might know how to get more even if they don't have it. There are no authorities in science, just experts.
In regard to your specific proposition about amputations, with the introduction above, it'll depend on why the doctors are saying that. Are they aware of the latest variety of treatments? Ultimately, the tissues of the leg and the microorganisms in play and the ischemic damage already sustained, etc do not know about the doctors. And often times, we can't even evaluate the situation at hand, either because the information isn't available or in order to gain the information necessary, we'd need to destroy the leg. So lots of times, the prognosis of this individual leg is based on completely unrelated instances of what are deemed similar circumstances, and if in those situations we've studied those cases and determined that without leg removal there's an 87% chance of patient fatality, then we would probably see the situation you propose: that 10 doctors say that he needs to do it or he might die. But when they're wrong (in the sense that he doesn't die), they weren't really wrong (because they didn't say that he'd die, only that he will almost definitely die). Science defines itself in that way, irrespective to what we say or how we think.
Ultimately, with 50 or 100 or 500 more years of vascular, immune or other research, we might discover more ways to sharpen prognosis. It could be that 10 doctors are wrong and it's an unfortunate gamble that we need to take now and can't wait around to see what happens and then opt for a do-over.
The difference here is that medicine is a science, whereas theology is a field that studied something that doesn't actually exist. Doctors change their minds all the time because science changes its mind all the time and that's because with new findings, the way we used to do things becomes obsolete. But not so with religion. Religion is way too sure of itself in a way that doesn't scale at all with the information it has available about the claims it wants to make. This should be obvious, and so the analogy, which at first glance might appear solid, is really a bad one in my estimation.
And it amounts to special pleading, because as I've explained above, none of the rabbis are arriving at their conclusions from anything other than having been indoctrinated themselves. And all the "experts" who have been indoctrinated in something else are just called priests or ministers or imams, and then Orthodox Jews don't have to listen to them, no matter how many of them there are or how respected in their fields they are.
I’m a little confused about your response about the amputations. I’m not giving some complicated hypothetical. Simply- someone who has average knowledge about medicine is in a situation where they don’t know any of the medical jargon that you spoke about and wouldn’t know how to assess it because they don’t know enough about medicine. They are told some words about infections and titers and numbers and such that they have minimal understanding. An average case. And 10 respected doctors in the field say to amputate or else it’s extremely likely they will die.
What should this persons stance be towards the proposition that “it’s extremely likely I will die if I don’t amputate”? High credence? Low credence?
>>>your subjective appraisal of your friends trustworthiness and intelligence, whether to accept their testimony, coupled with other factors (are you in a desert during the dry season or a jungle during a monsoon)
Is it fair to restate that you are doing above as establishing:
a) the friend's credibility
b) the level of credibility demanded
I'm ok with this so far.
>>>Yehuda's argument is that only empirical evidence suffices to determine whether something is true.
Well, I think what I'm saying is that since
a) there is an absence of friends to testify and be crossed examined
b) the level of credibility demanded is the highest level possible
I think we're looking for empirical evidence because with of this colossal mismatch. The magnitude of evidence necessary to justify a belief in the supernatural is greater than anything you could imagine; think dog vs. dragon and blue shirt vs. invisible shirt. And there is no testimony here. There's just a report of testimony. The Torah is the claim in its entirety, and there's no justification to accept it as truth. The Kuzari principle is a non-starter because it's no difference than Matthew 8:1-4, as follows:
1 When he came down from the mountain, great crowds followed him.
2 And behold, a leper came to him and knelt before him, saying, “Lord, if you will, you can make me clean.”
3 And Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, “I will; be clean.” And immediately his leprosy was cleansed.
4 And Jesus said to him, “See that you say nothing to anyone, but go, show yourself to the priest and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a proof to them.”
The Torah says there were 600,000 Jews at Sinai, but this was only males between the ages of 20-60. Most then figure there were about 2,000,000 total people. But what if there were only 600,000 total? What about 300,000 total? What about 50,000 total?
How many people are necessary to testify? Well, we have zero. It's a story about 2M people. None of them gave testimony. And one book with dubious claims about miracles and ahistorical events is not to be trusted when it makes absurd claims without sufficient evidence. Have you ever read Matthew? It doesn't say how many people were in the "great crowds" when Jesus performed this miracle. Was it 500 or 1,000 or 2M people? When the Catholics claim there was a Miracle of the Sun, how many were there? 30K or 100K? No one really knows. As Sam Harris mentions, Sathya Sai Baba was an Indian Hindu deity in human form and thousands of people who are alive today have testified about his miracles. Do any Orthodox Jews care about what it says in Matthew? No. Do any of them care about the Miracle of the Sun? No. How about Sai Baba? No. Why?
Because the reason Orthodox Jews follow their traditions and make the claims they do have absolutely nothing to do with the Kuzari principle or about mass revelation. It's because they've been taught as little kids that these stories are true, and then these little kids grow up and still think that magic is real and astrology is real and sorcerers are real and angels are real and superhuman strength is real and prophecy is real and there's someone really listening to prayers. This is why it's only in the last 30 years since Aryeh Kaplan that Orthodoxy has discussed these things. Before that, who discussed these things? There were no challenges from the wellsprings of internet information, and so there was no need to defend against it. I challenge everyone here to go ask their grandfathers and grandmothers if they heard of any of these things back when they were 5 and 10 years old.
>>>I also don't understand why he thinks that his view is objective rather than subjective.
Because I don't think contact has been made with the divine. Without information from beyond, how can anyone even consider that there is a beyond? What is everyone talking about? How can anyone think they know what happens after death or before birth? How can anyone speak of the supernatural or mystical or metaphysical, other than as a metaphor? Other than indoctrination with silly Jewish stories that exactly parallel the other stories that other people are raised with, and there's no way to differentiate between the different cases, other than this, what reason is there to think that any of this is real?
I'm not just asking people to justify their beliefs. I'm asking them to explain how they came about? Other than indoctrination, what is the filter that allows Hashem through and blocks Ganesha? It seems objective to me that religious people, whatever their stripes, are not thinking this through. Every claim that Judaism uses (holy and pure rabbis, an ancient tradition, a story about a multitude of witnesses, intricate rules, a lovely family life, kindness and peace-loving, etc.) is also used by other religions, and there's only indoctrination to explain how anyone can believe in any of this.
And when you ask people, like I have here, you get 85% nonsense, 10% tapdancing and 5% trolling.
<<<<The magnitude of evidence necessary to justify a belief in the supernatural is greater than anything you could imagine
Why?
I think it's because it's something so often claimed and yet never observed.
If you want to call that priors, then yes, I suppose that plays into it.
I don’t understand the inference from “people often are claiming it” to the conclusion that “it is likely not the explanation”
That we ought to be suspicious because it has become a pattern of type 1 errors.
>>>Yes, I have, as I have told you many times.
I didn't mean "did you ever read Matthew," but rather, did you note the miracle claim there and do you care about it? And I find you to be an anomaly, because most other Orthodox Jews would not believe in those claims.
>>>I give credence to other miracle claims
I don't think you do. The sinaitic tradition is only seen as important and necessary necessary because it happened too long ago for anyone to have been there. But what if Sinai happened last week, because at one point in time, according to Judaism, it did. Would we need 2M witnesses? I don't think so.
Modern miracle claims abound and they are more impressive than Judaism's because they happened in the lifetime of people who are alive today. Maybe you'd argue that Judaism's claims are the best of all the theisms, like chatGPT claimed, but why is that? At time zero, there was no tradition and so what was so magnificent? I don't think 2M people are necessary. I think we'd like more than 4 people, but I can't put my finger on the specific number of witnesses necessary.
Why are you not a follower of Sathya Sai Baba, according to your own rules? He didn't just claim and demonstrate miracles, but he claimed to be divine. And thousands of people saw it and testified to it.
I think it's because all of this is just a front of the academic Orthodox. There's an ethnic bias we all have that prevents us from accepting the claims of those we consider other. This is included under the umbrella of indoctrination. I submit that you don't really care about any of this and that it's all backfill. You believe because of faulty indoctrination, and you're so intelligent and well informed that you quote me this genius author and cite me that genius' blogpost. But are they Orthodox Jews? They are not. None of their arguments are specific enough, and so ultimately, you're either arguing for deism like Ash or you're arguing for Christianity or you're arguing for Ploiniusism.
Your stated position is not the widespread position of Orthodoxy, and we shouldn't confuse that with a defense of Orthodoxy, because this is not their position.
>>>And in every era, Jews were challenged by and converted to other ideologies - polytheism, Hellenism, Christianity, to name some prominent ones. The Jews who converted to Christianity were no less sure of their new faith than you are in yours.
Christianity: Estimated at 2.5 billion followers
Islam: Approximately 1.8 billion followers
Hinduism: Around 1.1 billion followers
Buddhism: About 500 million followers
Judaism: 15 million followers
Orthodox Judaism: 2.24 million followers*
* (Orthodox Jews are included in total Jews)
Since we're not siding with the majority, I don't know why even the minorities of Jews that shifted matters. What matters should be clear thinking and nothing else.
>>>and consider there to be solid philosophical reasons independent of Jewish fanciful stories, for the existence of metaphysical constructs
That's a great question. I don't think you need to be duped by only Jewish stories. Many people tell many stories.
>>>or example, Feser, who is a Catholic, not a Jew
What exactly is your argument here? Are you arguing that you want to keep his idea of a god, but not the identity of his god? Isn't your claim that he's wrong?
>>>From my perspective, you have chosen a specific set of philosophers (Dennett, Harris et al) and accept their conclusions despite being an amateur in philosophy.
Oh yes, I would agree that I'm even less than an amateur in philosophy. But I don't think this matters. Religion makes scientific claims and to head off into discussions about Kant and Spinoza and Maimonides when we're asking, "how do you know god exists?" is, as Harris and Dennett put it, a nonstarter. When someone claims that they can talk to their dead wife or dead mother, of what use is Hume and Plantinga? So yes, I think Dennett said great things and thought great thoughts, but not because he was a compatibilist or a teleofunctionalist and not a reliabilist or an instrumentalist.
>>>You do not seek to steelman their opponents position, or even consider them, and simply rest assured that they must be wrong because your chosen set do.
I rest assured they must be wrong as a result of hearing them speak about things irrelevant and immaterial, like you do here. You seem to avoid answering direct questions and you quote all these Catholics and atheists who you claim support your view, and you seem to be here promoting Orthodoxy but you seem quite heterodoxical when you tell me that you believe miracle claims of other religions.
Judaism is essentially completely based on a miracle claim...that god spoke to his nation. It's really not good enough that Moses spoke to his nation, because let's say that MLK Jr spoke to his "nation," so why is that not as special? Because he was just a man, as was Moses. The special thing here is not that there was a speech on Sinai, as I understand it, but that it was a miracle.
But everyone else seems to have their miracles. And you come to say, "yeah, I'm down with that." I don't think there is a steelman here because I don't think your position is anything but flimsy backfill because you're holding on tightly to the way you were raised. It's nostalgia, it's comfortable and it's indoctrination.
>>>just like every other cultist, you don’t, or perhaps can’t, see it.
On the contrary, I'm a non-cultist. And all it seems you can respond to that is: "but my father told that his father told him that his father told him," but I don't believe your story because I don't believe your father's story because I don't believe his father's story. And you don't recognize that so many other fathers are telling stories about their fathers. Or that they themselves witnessed miracles in India, but you were raised this way and not that, so "me good, them bad."
>>>This is false. My parents testified to me...
Well, your parents never testified to me, and my parents never testified to me either. I'd like to cross examine your parents. Can we make that happen? I would private message with them each, separately, and then we can post the full interviews on your page, if you'd like.
>>>This is a specific argument that seems to describe a kind of Bayesian epistemology.
I'll admit to not understanding this. I've heard it before, I've read about it before and it's beyond my ability to grasp, apparently. I can try again and get back to you, though.
>>>What are the reasons that this is your chosen frame for epistemology, and what are the reasons that you have dismissed those who don't accept it?
I only do this (if you say so) because the people who I follow do it. Harris and Dillahunty, mostly, I suppose. And it makes sense to me, like ultimate clarity. I'm reading your counter piece now and will respond to that point soon.
>>>Second, it depends on what you mean by “supernatural”. In some definitions, and I think definitely in Jewish ones, the conception of the “supernatural” Deity is the simplest definition.
As Harris/Dawkins/Dennett say, it's a god who can hear our prayers and respond to them, if he so chooses. Having a dead grandmother who you would claim to hear prayers and responds to them, if she so chooses, is no different. And claiming that you will one day meet your dead grandmother is also the same. I imagine it's not difficult to misconstrue this as ill-mannered, but I don't mean it this way: Harris finds it odd that people suddenly become philosophers when they're challenged on what would account for a supernatural claim. He thinks it's obvious that all the things we observe and know about are considered natural, and all the things we find in fantasy and fiction are supernatural. So when you watch a movie like Batman, it's fiction because it didn't happen, but there's no magic. But for Spiderman and Superman, where the things discussed can't happen (as far as we know), this would be supernatural, and you'd need really good evidence to for that. Way more than just your father telling you that his father saw a flying man, because that's exactly what we have in regard to Sathya Sai Baba and I don't think any of you cares about him, even though we have living witnesses alive today in India who have met him and can attest to his magic powers. No one cares. Here's a quote from Harris in a letter to Andrew Sullivan from 2007:
In any case, the extra-Biblical evidence of Jesus’ life is not as compelling as you seem to suggest. As you know, there is no contemporaneous description of the ministry of Jesus in the Bible or anywhere else. And even if the historical record offered multiple, first-hand accounts of his miracles, this would not constitute sufficient support for the basic claims of Christianity. First-hand reports of miracles are a dime a dozen, even in the 21st century. Many spiritual seekers in India testify to miracles performed by their gurus on a daily basis. These miracles are every bit as outlandish as the miracles attributed to Jesus. I have met literally hundreds of western educated men and women who are convinced that their favorite yogi has magic powers. I remain open to evidence of such powers (and my openness has exposed me to a fair amount of abuse in the atheist community). But as far as I can tell, all of these stories are promulgated by people who desperately want to believe them; all (to my knowledge) lack the kind of corroborating evidence one should require to actually believe that Nature’s laws have been abrogated in this way; and most people who report these events demonstrate an utter disinclination to look for non-miraculous explanations. In any case, stories about mystics (and charlatans) walking on water, raising the dead, flying without the aid of technology, materializing objects, reading minds, foretelling the future are being told now. Indeed, all of these powers have been attributed to the South Indian guru Sathya Sai Baba by an uncountable number of eyewitnesses-and the man claims to have been born of a virgin to boot! He has literally millions of followers, many of them educated westerners. You can watch some of his “miracles” on YouTube, performed before credulous throngs of spiritually hungry souls. Prepare to be underwhelmed. And yet, you are suggesting that tales of similar events emerging from the pre-scientific religious milieu of the 1st century Roman Empire (decades after their supposed occurrence) are especially credible.
Not expecting him to ever answer this, but leaving a comment so I’ll be notified just in case he does
mishenichnas yehuda marbim b'sechel- His long comments and responses if anything help with clarity. I have benefitted a lot from reading his comments and have gained a lot of knowledge from his posts. While I am awaiting his response to your great comment, assuming his long responses to just be a "strategy" is missing the point.
He's just going to respond with "why are you not thinking clearly - this agreeing with me"
1) Bentham's argument for theism’s high prior probability is not convincing because we have no basis for judging the nature of the universe’s cause. He assumes that ultimate reality must follow principles like simplicity and elegance, but we have no other universes to compare this one to, and no reason to assume that the cause of the universe is subject to the same conceptual rules that apply to things within it. Without a frame of reference, the claim that a “limitless mind” is the simplest explanation is entirely unfounded—we don’t even know if simplicity is a meaningful criterion at this level of reality.
Additionally, the idea that God is "simple" is highly questionable. Theists often claim that God's nature is beyond human comprehension, yet they simultaneously assert that he is somehow the simplest explanation for the universe. If God is truly beyond understanding, how can we be sure he isn't infinitely complex? The very attributes ascribed to God, omniscience and omnipotence introduce enormous explanatory difficulties. Reconciling omniscience with free will, omnipotence with the existence of evil all require complex theological maneuvers. These are not hallmarks of a “simple” theory but of an idea riddled with contradictions and intricate justifications.
Furthermore, he falsely assumes that we must choose between only two possible explanations for the universe: either a set of mathematical equations or God. But we have no idea how the universe came about. There could be possibilities we haven't even conceived of yet—our current knowledge may be completely inadequate to even frame the right questions, let alone answer them. Therefore, the probable stance is agnosticism regarding the universe’s origin. To confidently assert a specific God, especially one with the detailed attributes and demands of religious traditions, is not just unwarranted—it’s astonishingly presumptive. Even more troubling is the fact that religions don’t just propose God as a hypothesis—they demand absolute belief, punish dissent, and, throughout history, have killed people over these claims. If we are so vastly out of our depth in understanding the origins of reality, then the safest intellectual position is to admit our ignorance rather than dogmatically assert an unknowable deity as fact.
2) Regarding the testimony. One of the most fundamental mitzvot in Judaism is the commandment to recount the miracles of Egypt on Passover, with parents instructed to pass the story down to their children. This command was given directly to the people who supposedly experienced the Exodus firsthand, meaning there should have been thousands of personal accounts passed down. Similarly, the Torah commands not to forget the experience at Sinai—an event said to involve an entire nation hearing the voice of God. If these events truly happened as described, where are the records of personal accounts? While it's true that many ancient events fade from memory over time, something so foundational and supposedly witnessed by so many should have left at least some trace of first-hand personal testimony beyond later religious texts—yet we find nothing of the sort.
Additionally, I don’t understand the relevance of your claim about lineage. What does your family’s bloodline have to do with the events at Sinai? Do your parents have a tradition of where their ancestors stood when hearing the voice of God on the mountain?
And what do Kohanim have to do with this?
Even if we assume that Kohanim have preserved their lineage through generations, that does not establish anything about the authenticity of the events described in the Torah. A preserved tradition of priestly status is not the same as a verified testimony of divine revelation.
(It's also ironic how halacha treats mesorah. Despite relying so much on it, your example of Kohanim actually doesn’t hold up. Halacha is full of doubts and leniencies concerning priestly status for marriage because Kohanim today are not considered fully established as Kohanim with certainty. This is also why Kohanim are not permitted to eat terumah or challah, since their lineage is not proven to a sufficient degree. Likewise, when performing pidyon haben, people seek out a "Kohen Meyuchas" rather than relying on ordinary Kohanim.)
3) Regarding Matthew: Your few critiques (of which I have no opinion on) of Matthew pale in comparison to the vast number of critiques that Bible scholars have leveled against Exodus, drawing from other parts of the Bible, historical analysis, and archaeological evidence.
You "takeh" do remind of yeshiva guys arguing. Whenever someone points out flawed reasoning in a Rishon or Achron, it is often countered with:
It can't be!
It simply can't be true, since what was the Rishon thinking.
This type of reasoning gets one nowhere in life.
Yes. Often, we must choose between two sides of expert opinions. If you or the theist leaning philosophers have reason to believe we have access to the mechanisms of the origins of the universe, please share them.
More importantly, merely positing an opinion is not the same as acting upon it, and certainly not the same as making drastic individual and societal changes as religion does. It is only logical to remain passive in this discussion—not assuming anything concrete, and certainly not acting upon unverified claims.
Regarding Gottleib on Shabbos and Tefillin, these could have developed later rather than originating at Sinai. Many scholars date the Bible to far later than the alleged time of the Siani experience. The mere fact that Jews observe these is in no way equivalent to a tradition of slavery in Egypt or the Sinai experience. Am I missing something?
The concept of a "Kohen Meyuchas" is only a relatively modern hangup. And again the Kohain tradition is not honored in Halacha as I mentioned.
Regarding the Bible and Mattehw, the Bible (like your Matthew claims of which I know nothing about) also contains numerous internal contradictions. For example, Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 present conflicting creation accounts, differing on the order of creation and whether man or animals were created first. The Torah gives two different sets of the Ten Commandments, with variations between Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. As for Shabbos, the reasons given for its observance are inconsistent. In Exodus 20:11, it is tied to God's creation of the world, while in Deuteronomy 5:15, it is linked to the Israelites’ slavery in Egypt. Meanwhile, Exodus 23:12 presents an entirely different rationale—that animals and servants should be given a day of rest.
I really do not say this to belittle (and anyway who am I) but please if you’re an atheist at least be a sophisticated one.
Why not an ignorant one? I think most people should be ignorant atheists to be honest. At least average intelligence people should have epistemic humility and realize they probably don’t get the arguments for god very well even if they tried.
It’s like the field of medicine. Most people should be ignorant about what actually has research backing it and use other tools like trust to figure out what the right course of action is and the right beliefs are.
You can make up for average intelligence by due diligence avid learning learning from people that are smarter learning logic etc, my point is if you are going to write an article basically calling every argument for God and religion stupid then maybe some epistemic humility wouldn’t hurt
Hi Avi,
Do you have any actual responses to anything in the post? If so, I'd love to hear them!
>>>maybe some epistemic humility
The atheist is the humble one. It's the religionist who pretends to know more than he can.
Thank you
I completely agree with this last reply. I just think the most reasonable position for an average person who hasn’t spent hundreds of hours researching the arguments is to say “I’m ignorant so therefore I’m an atheist”. I think there should be more unsophisticated atheists like that in the world. That’s all.
I'm ignorant and the world looks designed is far more honest
Based on an argument from design or an intuition?
If the argument, it’s more reasonable to say that many smarter people spent so much time looking at the arguments and until I do I shouldn’t accept it.
If based on intuition, then I think it’s unreasonable to make metaphysical claims like that based on intuition. What reason do you have to trust your intuition?
Our intuition is quite good, no? If ones ignorant
The existence or non-existence of God cannot be proven. Why are you so fixated on what side of the aisle folks are on? Truth? Yesterday’s truth is tomorrow’s fallacy. Be a good person. Religion should foster goodness. If that has not been your experience I am sorry.
Hello Ephi,
Thanks for commenting.
>>>The existence or non-existence of God cannot be proven.
I would agree with that.
>>>Why are you so fixated on what side of the aisle folks are on?
I'm not so fixated on it. I merely presented to those who were pretending to be so sure that they are wrong to pretend. It's better to be honest.
>>>Truth?
After הבדלה, some people wave the flame out. Other people turn the candle over and dip the flame into the wine. Other people still blow it out.
When a person who does not blow it out sees a person blow out the candles, the former will often tell the latter: "oh, you're not supposed to do that." Why does he do that? Because he thinks that it matters how you extinguish the candle. But why? Because he was once told a story about it that almost certainly wasn't true.
Truth is important because it allows us to relate to one another. There's something objective that we're all relating to, all engaged in and all connected within. Truth is real and so it's important.
>>>Yesterday’s truth is tomorrow’s fallacy.
You probably think that this is a profound statement, but it's not. It appears to be a religionists attempt to undercut science, and it's a very harmful outlook. How many truths did you know yesterday that turned out to be tomorrow's falsehood? Did you car start running on water instead of gasoline? Did your flowers start living living on gasoline instead of water? Did souls start being lost because someone blew out a flame?
No. All of these remain the same, as do so many things that you know about and count on to remain constant. If insulin and metformin worked yesterday and stopped working tomorrow, it would be extremely surprising. But penicillin worked yesterday and will stop working tomorrow, figuratively speaking. Why? Because bacteria develop antibiotic resistance. The world is a real place, and with this comment you make it seem like it is not.
>>>Be a good person
Of course we should be good people. But you don't need religion for that.
>>>Religion should foster goodness
Well, it will certainly depend on what religion you speak of and how you define goodness.
>>>If that has not been your experience I am sorry.
Was this post intended as an emotional argument? You can do Judaism and you can be מקפיד on all the chumras, and you can be sweet and gentle, except when your daughter wants to get divorced and her husband refuses. Then we are not so nice.
But my position is not triggered by my daughter being stuck. Rather, I'm just here to counter the fallacious surety of all those propose to know more than they do.
Religionists often think that the reason why secularists do not believe is because they are hurt. But they don't believe because there's nothing to believe in.
Rereading this post and the comments, this strikes me as hilarious:
"All I ask is that you keep an open mind"
Hi Ash,
Growing up within the confines of Modern Orthodoxy, I believed that open-mindedness was our secret weapon over the Charedim and Yeshivish communities. We were the ones who embraced science, engaged in debates with atheists, and valued higher education. In contrast, the Yeshivish world seemed rigid anti-college, a slave to their Roshei Yeshiva, and destined for a lifetime in kollel. It was us versus them.
But as I went through life, I realized that the real divide wasn’t between Modern Orthodoxy and being yeshivish; it was between believers and non-believers. Ironically, the very smugness I once held over the Charedim for being "closed-minded" was, in itself, a façade. I had been deceiving myself, believing I held the intellectual high ground, when in reality, I was just as bound by my own assumptions.
Having an open mind isn’t about engaging in controversial topics your rabbi would rather you ignore or giving dachuk answers to justify your beliefs. It means truly engaging with ideas, internalizing the arguments, and considering what it would mean if they were actually true.
You, however, fail to see that you are still shackled to the wall in the cave. Open-mindedness is only half the battle. Laugh all you want, but an open mind, without an intelligent mind, is merely an empty virtue.
Username doesn't check out. Since when do Modox kids watch marvelous middos machine?
I think it's funny.
I disagree with your assumption that the only true conclusion and open-minded person can come to is yours. I think that's ridiculous.
Yes, I agree that automatically assuming you're right is ridiculous. And that applies to you as well. So why is the phrase, "All I ask is that you keep an open mind" so hilarious ? If anyone is presuming their assumptions to be unquestionably right, it sounds like you.
The question here is what conclusion is acceptable and appropriate, not what's true.
You have no good reason to arrive at the conclusion you have. You do so for emotional reasons and then backfill with weak special pleading.
Maybe there's a god who can hear your prayers, but how could you ever possibly know about it? What's ridiculous is you pretending that you do.
https://open.substack.com/pub/benthams/p/arguments-for-god-tier-list?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=33pit
My response to Yehuda Mishenichnas:
https://daastorah.substack.com/p/the-ghost-delusion