As a kid I used to think about Heaven and what a great place it would be. But my ideas never included singing endless hymns to God with the chorus of angels as viewed in Navi or endless sitting in a beit midrash slumped over a Gemara as some of my rabbis had proposed or playing endless games of baseball where I never lost as some of my friends considered, but of a place to know everything I ever wanted to know.
As I saw God as the unquestioned source for absolutely correct knowledge, I wanted to ask God to show me how the game of humanity would turn out. Show the Earth three million years in the future and see what has been built up...or what had been left behind. I wanted to be in the company of greats like Abraham and Moses and Einstein. Oh, what conversations we could have had.
I even had my first question for God all worked out already. What color was dinosaur skin? I was so curious about that because I thought that there was probably no way scientists could ever figure that one out.
Sunday, February 06, 2005
Saturday, February 05, 2005
The Flawed Kuzari Argument
"If the whole thing was made up, ....don't you think somebody would have popped the question: "Why didn't I ever hear about all this stuff before? My grandparents never mentioned any of this?""
Do you know how legends are formed? There may or may not be a nugget of truth at the very beginning, but each succeeding generation of an oral tradition adds details, embellishes events, aggrandizes the reality. Have you ever played the game "Broken Telephone"?
The first time the story of Sinai appears was not in its written form, but in the minds and mouths of thousands of ancient Hebrews. Their grandparents did mention something like it as did theirgrandparents before them. It was this fluid oral mythology which was eventually written into the Torah which we know today.
George Washington's existence has many independent sources. Hell, we even have his teeth. I don't count "eyewitnesses" who don't leave arecord of what they saw. The Torah has a record of a mythology which states there were witnesses. Hardly the same thing.
"That, my friend, is the basis of all historical validity. Numbers. The more witnesses, the truer the story."
If I write a book and claim that 6 billion witnesses saw me fly, does that make it truer than the Torah?
"Who told you that? Please provide evidence that the first time the story of Sinai appears was not in its written form, but in the minds and mouths of thousands of ancient Hebrews."
That's how mythology begins. We have numerous examples of mythologies of other civilizations and societies. And as most people in antiquity were illiterate, the only form of transmission was orally. The concept of stories were told around campfires probably since language itself was established. They didn't begin when literacy did. I don't have any direct evidence. It's circumstantial induction and a much more reasonable answer than invoking the supernatural.
By the way, one could use the same Kuzari argument for other supernatural mythologies. Consider the Book of Invasions of the Irish, written in the 11th century. It reports many miracles and magics used in the invasion of Ireland by the Milesians ~1000 BCE. Now, the Irish believed the Milesians were their ancestors. And they never came to the Book of Invasions and asked, "Why didn't grandpa ever mention this?" Because they all knew the story already, it was just then in written form.
Now, do you believe all the miraculous happenings in the invasion, like the island turning invisible? It works by the same argument you've offered.
Do you know how legends are formed? There may or may not be a nugget of truth at the very beginning, but each succeeding generation of an oral tradition adds details, embellishes events, aggrandizes the reality. Have you ever played the game "Broken Telephone"?
The first time the story of Sinai appears was not in its written form, but in the minds and mouths of thousands of ancient Hebrews. Their grandparents did mention something like it as did theirgrandparents before them. It was this fluid oral mythology which was eventually written into the Torah which we know today.
George Washington's existence has many independent sources. Hell, we even have his teeth. I don't count "eyewitnesses" who don't leave arecord of what they saw. The Torah has a record of a mythology which states there were witnesses. Hardly the same thing.
"That, my friend, is the basis of all historical validity. Numbers. The more witnesses, the truer the story."
If I write a book and claim that 6 billion witnesses saw me fly, does that make it truer than the Torah?
"Who told you that? Please provide evidence that the first time the story of Sinai appears was not in its written form, but in the minds and mouths of thousands of ancient Hebrews."
That's how mythology begins. We have numerous examples of mythologies of other civilizations and societies. And as most people in antiquity were illiterate, the only form of transmission was orally. The concept of stories were told around campfires probably since language itself was established. They didn't begin when literacy did. I don't have any direct evidence. It's circumstantial induction and a much more reasonable answer than invoking the supernatural.
By the way, one could use the same Kuzari argument for other supernatural mythologies. Consider the Book of Invasions of the Irish, written in the 11th century. It reports many miracles and magics used in the invasion of Ireland by the Milesians ~1000 BCE. Now, the Irish believed the Milesians were their ancestors. And they never came to the Book of Invasions and asked, "Why didn't grandpa ever mention this?" Because they all knew the story already, it was just then in written form.
Now, do you believe all the miraculous happenings in the invasion, like the island turning invisible? It works by the same argument you've offered.
Inherent Cosmological Properties
"And who set the rules for the universe?"
I think you assume to much with the question word "who." A more correct question would be "what." And the answer would be that I don't know.
Though I suspect that the rules of nature are an inherent property of the universe. Like the reason why water melts at 0 degree celsius under 1 atm. That happens because of the molecular shape of water. And the molecular shape is what makes water water. You cannot
separate water from melting at 0 C. Likewise, one cannot separate the universe from the inherent properties within it.
Though I admit that this is just speculation.
I think you assume to much with the question word "who." A more correct question would be "what." And the answer would be that I don't know.
Though I suspect that the rules of nature are an inherent property of the universe. Like the reason why water melts at 0 degree celsius under 1 atm. That happens because of the molecular shape of water. And the molecular shape is what makes water water. You cannot
separate water from melting at 0 C. Likewise, one cannot separate the universe from the inherent properties within it.
Though I admit that this is just speculation.
Humaneness of Shechita
This was a response to the leaked video of a poorly done shechita from a kosher slaughterhouse in Iowa a few months ago.
"So I personally am not sure that there is such a thing as a cow going unconscious instantly after the initial act."
There is no reason to think it would happen instantly, but if done correctly it does happen quickly. If both carotid arteries are cut, sheep will go unconscious between 2 and 15 seconds (Nangeroni and Kennett, 1963; Gregory and Wotton, 1984; Blackmore, 1984). Cows can
have prolonged periods of consciousness, especially if they are excited or if the cut is made slowly. But a quick cut, high near the jaw on a calm animal will cause very little pain and consciousness can be lost between 5 and 60 seconds.
There is no reason why shechita can't be done in the most humane way even though an animal can be kosher after a slow cut while being excited and in pain from handling. Basically, a kosher slaughter can be very humane - but shechita does not automatically equate into humane treatment.
"So I personally am not sure that there is such a thing as a cow going unconscious instantly after the initial act."
There is no reason to think it would happen instantly, but if done correctly it does happen quickly. If both carotid arteries are cut, sheep will go unconscious between 2 and 15 seconds (Nangeroni and Kennett, 1963; Gregory and Wotton, 1984; Blackmore, 1984). Cows can
have prolonged periods of consciousness, especially if they are excited or if the cut is made slowly. But a quick cut, high near the jaw on a calm animal will cause very little pain and consciousness can be lost between 5 and 60 seconds.
There is no reason why shechita can't be done in the most humane way even though an animal can be kosher after a slow cut while being excited and in pain from handling. Basically, a kosher slaughter can be very humane - but shechita does not automatically equate into humane treatment.
The Bible Was Written When?
Check out Genesis 36:31 - "Now these are the kings who reigned inthe land of Edom before a king reigned over the Children ofIsrael."
A statement like that necessarily implies that there were kings which had already reigned over Israel before the time of writing. It makes no sense to place events in time by referring it to events which haven't occurred yet. In fact, this way of writing seems like a very typical way of referring to events which happened long ago.
Of course, if you believe in prophecy and all that then there's no problem pushing back the writing of the Bible back as far as you want. But it must have been strange for those guys wondering when those kings would show up.
A statement like that necessarily implies that there were kings which had already reigned over Israel before the time of writing. It makes no sense to place events in time by referring it to events which haven't occurred yet. In fact, this way of writing seems like a very typical way of referring to events which happened long ago.
Of course, if you believe in prophecy and all that then there's no problem pushing back the writing of the Bible back as far as you want. But it must have been strange for those guys wondering when those kings would show up.
The Rigors of Skepticism
"As my father said " for a believer, no proof is necessary. For a non believer all the proof in the world will not be enough."
No offense to your father, but I don't think he understands what skepticism is all about. In fact, that statement is saying that an unbeliever is a cynic who wouldn't believe even when seeing evidence to the contrary. But if there were proof only loons would claim skepticism.
The whole point of skepticism is to not accept claims without rigorous review and understanding the evidence for it. Most faiths simply do not withstand such rigors.
No offense to your father, but I don't think he understands what skepticism is all about. In fact, that statement is saying that an unbeliever is a cynic who wouldn't believe even when seeing evidence to the contrary. But if there were proof only loons would claim skepticism.
The whole point of skepticism is to not accept claims without rigorous review and understanding the evidence for it. Most faiths simply do not withstand such rigors.
The Importance of Chanuka
I know this post is really late in the season, but I've been taking a lot of my posts from what I've said on The Frum Skeptics Group and putting them here. This was from a post I had written back in November.
I had heard once that the more religious a Jew is the less one gives the holiday of Chanuka much importance. Now, that does make some sense as Chanuka is not a Biblical holiday like Pesach or Yom Kippur is and so it is considered a lesser holiday from a religious pointof view.
I give the holiday more importance than Biblical holidays that mean almost nothing to me. Shavuot? What's the big deal there? I'm not afarmer. But Chanuka is the holiday commemorating the Jewish fightfor independence against those who would try wiping out everything Jewish. A true underdog story of those who would fight for what is right against a mightier foe - and succeed.
It is the story of the fight against assimilation. Which is why Ithink it is sadly ironic that it has become the one truly assimilated holiday in America. Chanuka should not have ever become the Christmas for Jews.
Chanuka means alot to me. It has strong historical significance and a strong message which is still relevant today.
I had heard once that the more religious a Jew is the less one gives the holiday of Chanuka much importance. Now, that does make some sense as Chanuka is not a Biblical holiday like Pesach or Yom Kippur is and so it is considered a lesser holiday from a religious pointof view.
I give the holiday more importance than Biblical holidays that mean almost nothing to me. Shavuot? What's the big deal there? I'm not afarmer. But Chanuka is the holiday commemorating the Jewish fightfor independence against those who would try wiping out everything Jewish. A true underdog story of those who would fight for what is right against a mightier foe - and succeed.
It is the story of the fight against assimilation. Which is why Ithink it is sadly ironic that it has become the one truly assimilated holiday in America. Chanuka should not have ever become the Christmas for Jews.
Chanuka means alot to me. It has strong historical significance and a strong message which is still relevant today.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Subjective Reality?
"It's not just tastes that are subjective - to a great extent it's EVERYTHING. To each of us, the universe is nothing more than a series of sensory inputs. As we take in different inputs, our universe changes. If we don't hear that tree falling in the forest, for us it literally doesn't fall."
If you don't look at the Moon it's still there. If you've never seen the Amazon rainforest, it exists there regardless. Your assertion that everything is subjective is just plain wrong. In that case there is no purpose at all in criminal cases as you can be just as guilty as the one who actually killed the man. There is no purpose to science as the results of your experiments are just as meaningful as opposite results or no results. I totally reject that assertion. The people may see things differently and in their own minds have subjective opinions - but that doesn't change the objective facts.
"Quantum mechanics deals with the idea that observation is literally affected by the act of observance. Are you familiar with Schroedingers cat? Until you open that box, it exists in a limbo between life and death."
No, actually this is a common misconception about Schrodinger's cat _paradox_. The point of this story is to show that the conscious observer determines reality hypothesis is absurd. How can a cat be both dead and alive at the same time? The conclusion is that any physical object capable of being affected by the collapse of the wave function is an "observer." This is just as well done by the nucleus of the decayed atom which changed as could be done by a conscious human observer. The human observer can just verify if the atom decayed or not.
Indeed, there have been actual experiments done which prove the observor determination hypothesis wrong. It has to do with spontaneous uranium atom decay. The decay forces nuclei flying apart into some surrounding material. The amount of decay is measured indirectly by counting the number of tracked lines formed by the ejected nuclei in the material. Yet if it is the observer which determines that rate, how could it be measured by already existing lines?
"I'd suggest that faith occupies a similar place in our universe. While its backed by belief and remains real, all the theories ofevolution and inconsitencies in the torah in the world won't alter it and its potent effects."
The universe exists as it does and it makes no difference to the universe what humanity believes to be true about it. Nothing about human beliefs determine the facts of the physical universe. Just because people used to believe in dragons does not mean dragons ever existed.
If you don't look at the Moon it's still there. If you've never seen the Amazon rainforest, it exists there regardless. Your assertion that everything is subjective is just plain wrong. In that case there is no purpose at all in criminal cases as you can be just as guilty as the one who actually killed the man. There is no purpose to science as the results of your experiments are just as meaningful as opposite results or no results. I totally reject that assertion. The people may see things differently and in their own minds have subjective opinions - but that doesn't change the objective facts.
"Quantum mechanics deals with the idea that observation is literally affected by the act of observance. Are you familiar with Schroedingers cat? Until you open that box, it exists in a limbo between life and death."
No, actually this is a common misconception about Schrodinger's cat _paradox_. The point of this story is to show that the conscious observer determines reality hypothesis is absurd. How can a cat be both dead and alive at the same time? The conclusion is that any physical object capable of being affected by the collapse of the wave function is an "observer." This is just as well done by the nucleus of the decayed atom which changed as could be done by a conscious human observer. The human observer can just verify if the atom decayed or not.
Indeed, there have been actual experiments done which prove the observor determination hypothesis wrong. It has to do with spontaneous uranium atom decay. The decay forces nuclei flying apart into some surrounding material. The amount of decay is measured indirectly by counting the number of tracked lines formed by the ejected nuclei in the material. Yet if it is the observer which determines that rate, how could it be measured by already existing lines?
"I'd suggest that faith occupies a similar place in our universe. While its backed by belief and remains real, all the theories ofevolution and inconsitencies in the torah in the world won't alter it and its potent effects."
The universe exists as it does and it makes no difference to the universe what humanity believes to be true about it. Nothing about human beliefs determine the facts of the physical universe. Just because people used to believe in dragons does not mean dragons ever existed.
Red Pill or Blue Pill
"My point, exactly. Isn't it clear that all things considered it would have been better for him NOT to know? What is gained by his knowing except some abstract satisfaction in knowing "Truth (tm)" That's why I, certainly, would not want to know. Would you really want to?"
I understand the point. Ignorance is very often indeed bliss. But there's nothing admirable about that. If happiness is all that is important then why not induce it medically and keep everyone in some ecstatic stupor their whole lives? Why not keep everyone in childhood mentality with a few "unfortunate" educated to govern them, ala "Brave New World"?
Why is being trapped in The Matrix such a bad fate, really?
Yes, the red pill isn't always easy to swallow. But, for me, the blue pill is just plain hard to stomach.
I understand the point. Ignorance is very often indeed bliss. But there's nothing admirable about that. If happiness is all that is important then why not induce it medically and keep everyone in some ecstatic stupor their whole lives? Why not keep everyone in childhood mentality with a few "unfortunate" educated to govern them, ala "Brave New World"?
Why is being trapped in The Matrix such a bad fate, really?
Yes, the red pill isn't always easy to swallow. But, for me, the blue pill is just plain hard to stomach.
Morality and Society
"are you saying that it is the consensus of society that makes things right or wrong?"
Morality is a human construct. Does that mean it is meaningless, no. Democratic government is a human construct too. So is the concept of family. So is art. These are all aspects of society and are dependent on how the society at hand defines all these things or includes these things.
Can individuals disagree with the society at large? Certainly, they do all the time. What is quality art? Modern art is under severe criticism by many people. Is the family a nuclear one? Can it have a single mother? Can it have two dads? Is the whole village a family? Do people think democracy is the way to go? I can think of some who disagree.
The same is true for morality. Is there a general consensus about some issues? Murder, yeah that's usually across the board. Theft, typically considered so too. Though there are those with Robin Hood-type ideas. Is abortion immoral? Well, that's a highly contentious issue. What about gay marriage? What about war? What about human rights? What about capital punishment? What about eating meat?
There are some societies who exalt women's rights and some who squirm at the idea. There are societies who consider slavery an abomination, others which don't. There are societies which consider cannibalism just plain disgusting, others not so much. I can go on and on.
The concept of morality is indeed important and an advanced conception of morality is needed for higher societies as the power individuals have to do great harm increases. But the source for morality, apart from inherent empathy, isn't anything but from the societies themselves.
There is inherent morality for things like murder and theft typically because societies which did not have these basics were untenable and had no future. Why would anyone work to produce things if people could just steal them? How could you go to market if you were liable to be killed?
Sorry for such a long response when I could just have said "yes" but it is a bit more complex than that. For societal determination of morality, it is formed by the consensus of the society at large. But there can be as many individual moralities as there are people.
Morality is a human construct. Does that mean it is meaningless, no. Democratic government is a human construct too. So is the concept of family. So is art. These are all aspects of society and are dependent on how the society at hand defines all these things or includes these things.
Can individuals disagree with the society at large? Certainly, they do all the time. What is quality art? Modern art is under severe criticism by many people. Is the family a nuclear one? Can it have a single mother? Can it have two dads? Is the whole village a family? Do people think democracy is the way to go? I can think of some who disagree.
The same is true for morality. Is there a general consensus about some issues? Murder, yeah that's usually across the board. Theft, typically considered so too. Though there are those with Robin Hood-type ideas. Is abortion immoral? Well, that's a highly contentious issue. What about gay marriage? What about war? What about human rights? What about capital punishment? What about eating meat?
There are some societies who exalt women's rights and some who squirm at the idea. There are societies who consider slavery an abomination, others which don't. There are societies which consider cannibalism just plain disgusting, others not so much. I can go on and on.
The concept of morality is indeed important and an advanced conception of morality is needed for higher societies as the power individuals have to do great harm increases. But the source for morality, apart from inherent empathy, isn't anything but from the societies themselves.
There is inherent morality for things like murder and theft typically because societies which did not have these basics were untenable and had no future. Why would anyone work to produce things if people could just steal them? How could you go to market if you were liable to be killed?
Sorry for such a long response when I could just have said "yes" but it is a bit more complex than that. For societal determination of morality, it is formed by the consensus of the society at large. But there can be as many individual moralities as there are people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
