Someone on TFSG brought up the question of whether the ancient Egyptian government could have conspired in such a way to destroy the evidence of a large Hebrew slave population and Exodus, thus explaining the apparent lack of corroborating evidence for the story as it is recorded in the Torah.
This is how I responded:
"While conspiracy theories are fun, if they have nothing behind them but speculation then there's no reason to give them credence unless you're already convinced otherwise.
If the Torah's account is taken as literal, it would, first of all, conflict with the estimated population figures that Egyptologists give for the New Kingdom which is 3-4 million - total. If the Hebrews then made up ~3 million of that number then the entire social situation would have been wacky and Egyptian history - as it is currently understood - would be mostly nonsense from that period.
Furthermore, after a series of events which lead to the death of a good portion of the Egyptian population - at least one firstborn from every household - not to mention the rest of the plagues - and the exodus of 75% of the population as it existed before Moses came back - there would have been a tiny fraction of the pauperized population still living in Egypt. That massive depopulation would have required massive societal restructuring (as virtually the entire working/servant class had escaped) as well as a huge shrinking in economic output and military prowess. Egypt would have been a shadow of its once powerful self.
None of this occurs in any historical record, nor is there any archeological evidence even remotely suggesting it.
I cannot conceive of a realistic method by which the leaders of Egypt could simultaneously destroy the evidence of millions of people living over hundreds of years, leave no record (historical or archeological) of a depopulation and subsequent societal restructuring - all the while staving off foreign interest in conquering their land with a much reduced military might.
The whole idea is simply absurd.
Mix all of that in with the up front claims of miracles and other supernatural wonders and it becomes obvious that we are not dealing with a realistic portrayal of historical events.
Now, that said, I do believe that _something_ happened and that the story is predicated on real events. The exact nature of those events I am not sure about but I suspect they hold a similar relationship to the Torah's record as the Trojan War has with the Iliad.
As I said earlier, myths were common in every civilization. Why should we presume that Israel was an exception?
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Monday, February 19, 2007
Of Halachah and the Unknowable
Ben Avuyah has just written another very well written post, this time primarily about the unknowability of God or His intentions and therefore the vacuum of knowledge on which Halacha is traditionally founded and the lack of guidance offered to Halachic decision makers.
As he writes, in excerpt:
"The difficulty is that halachah is not a self contained legal system. It is an extension of God’s mind, and in that sense it is an outgrowth of theology itself: A murky tar pit with no bottom or sides upon which we insist we have built or rigorously argued a coherent code of law.
Yet the fact remains that upon such an unsteady foundation the only blueprint for construction is doubt.
I highlight but one example above…the idea that a creator being may deliver a code of law to test if its subject can follow it, to test if and when its subjects righteously rebel against it, or any number of reasons in between. Without knowing motivation or plan, there is not much more to say.
With the axiom in hand, the we are not privy to God’s thoughts, it appears equally likely that he would choose to test our ability to follow what he has clearly spelled out, as he would to test our ability to rebel, and “tell truth to power” when we “feel” our rules are not guided by moral dictates acceptable to our human sensibilities. Indeed, I weigh the second option over the first. What can God know about you character other than a willingness to follow rules, in the first scenario; it is the second case that is necessary to evaluate character."
In response I wrote this:
Very interesting post. The point is, though, something we can come right to at the start. We don't really know anything about God (meaning ultimate truth, existence, what have you) and therefore we have no means of understanding intent - or even if there is 'intent' as we understand the term.
So in what sense is Halacha the will of God? Standard Orthodoxy is simply that Israel made a deal with God. We follow His rulebook and He gives us Eretz Yisrael, the good life and protection from our enemies (and later on eternal life). But that is as simplistic as it is uninspiring for today's age.
I think an important aspect of religion is exactly the kind of internal conflict resolution you wrote about. Like the famous illustration by Kierkegaard, should Abraham follow the command he thinks is from God and slaughter Isaac or should he "tell truth to power," as you said, and refuse? What indeed is the real test here? Obedience or moral rectitude?
As I see it, Abraham had earlier stood up to God on moral grounds when he actually reproached God of the wrongness of killing the good with the bad at the cities of Sodom and Gemorrah. Yet God there assured Abraham that there really were no righteous men there and therefore the act - and by extension God Himself - was moral.
The assurance then is that God is good and the laws He gives are good laws. Personally, I believe a more correct way of phrasing it is that the laws were made by men with moral intent. They did err in some aspects, but the basic thrust is clear, even if rudimentary.
I do believe you are right on the money where you state that Modern Orthodoxy is backwards in its mechanism of defending Halachic practice through very specific dogmatic theological principles. A better way is to treat Halacha, not as commands by God later on further defined by rabbis, but as a system laid down from antiquity by farsighted men with the intent of promoting, as David opined, an ideal society as understood between men and as the individual while being cognizant of a profound reality.
The intent of Halachic Judaism then is simply to encourage individual progress, societal morality, respect for our heritage and consciousness of the divine. As a human construct, the intent is of human origin and hence comprehensible.
I believe it obvious that we are currently in a transitional age (and have been for some time). What the form Halacha will take in future times is difficult to predict, but I do believe, as David does, that we ought to stick with it through the "tough" times so that our posterity are there for the good times.
As he writes, in excerpt:
"The difficulty is that halachah is not a self contained legal system. It is an extension of God’s mind, and in that sense it is an outgrowth of theology itself: A murky tar pit with no bottom or sides upon which we insist we have built or rigorously argued a coherent code of law.
Yet the fact remains that upon such an unsteady foundation the only blueprint for construction is doubt.
I highlight but one example above…the idea that a creator being may deliver a code of law to test if its subject can follow it, to test if and when its subjects righteously rebel against it, or any number of reasons in between. Without knowing motivation or plan, there is not much more to say.
With the axiom in hand, the we are not privy to God’s thoughts, it appears equally likely that he would choose to test our ability to follow what he has clearly spelled out, as he would to test our ability to rebel, and “tell truth to power” when we “feel” our rules are not guided by moral dictates acceptable to our human sensibilities. Indeed, I weigh the second option over the first. What can God know about you character other than a willingness to follow rules, in the first scenario; it is the second case that is necessary to evaluate character."
In response I wrote this:
Very interesting post. The point is, though, something we can come right to at the start. We don't really know anything about God (meaning ultimate truth, existence, what have you) and therefore we have no means of understanding intent - or even if there is 'intent' as we understand the term.
So in what sense is Halacha the will of God? Standard Orthodoxy is simply that Israel made a deal with God. We follow His rulebook and He gives us Eretz Yisrael, the good life and protection from our enemies (and later on eternal life). But that is as simplistic as it is uninspiring for today's age.
I think an important aspect of religion is exactly the kind of internal conflict resolution you wrote about. Like the famous illustration by Kierkegaard, should Abraham follow the command he thinks is from God and slaughter Isaac or should he "tell truth to power," as you said, and refuse? What indeed is the real test here? Obedience or moral rectitude?
As I see it, Abraham had earlier stood up to God on moral grounds when he actually reproached God of the wrongness of killing the good with the bad at the cities of Sodom and Gemorrah. Yet God there assured Abraham that there really were no righteous men there and therefore the act - and by extension God Himself - was moral.
The assurance then is that God is good and the laws He gives are good laws. Personally, I believe a more correct way of phrasing it is that the laws were made by men with moral intent. They did err in some aspects, but the basic thrust is clear, even if rudimentary.
I do believe you are right on the money where you state that Modern Orthodoxy is backwards in its mechanism of defending Halachic practice through very specific dogmatic theological principles. A better way is to treat Halacha, not as commands by God later on further defined by rabbis, but as a system laid down from antiquity by farsighted men with the intent of promoting, as David opined, an ideal society as understood between men and as the individual while being cognizant of a profound reality.
The intent of Halachic Judaism then is simply to encourage individual progress, societal morality, respect for our heritage and consciousness of the divine. As a human construct, the intent is of human origin and hence comprehensible.
I believe it obvious that we are currently in a transitional age (and have been for some time). What the form Halacha will take in future times is difficult to predict, but I do believe, as David does, that we ought to stick with it through the "tough" times so that our posterity are there for the good times.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Moral Ends
"And "we make our own purposes" may sound nice, but it's pretty clearly not an answer to the question.
Survival would, from a Darwinian perspective, appear to be a 'legitimate' purpose. All other purposes, from that perspective, would have to be artificial constructs. It would seem to me, then, that there could be no objective way of evaluating their relative merits beyond their respective capacities to amuse me."
'Survival' is just an urge we have inherited from our Darwinian origins, if you want to look at it that way. But why should we follow the dictates of some inefficient natural system anymore than we should insist that we cannot use technology since it was artificially created?
Artificial just means "man made" not "fake."
As I see it, pursuit of a greater human society in conjunction with pursuit of the greatness of the individual is the goal of morality. And so much of what makes us great - or can make us great - are things artificially created. In fact, the things that make me most proud of being human are things that human beings have made and done and not the powers we have inherited from nature.
----
"Rather high-falutin' stuff, Orthoprax. But I have some difficulty distinguishing it from anybody else's high-falutin' stuff.
In the end, Plato, Gandhi, Stalin, Hitler, Jefferson and a host of others all sought a "greater human society." To some extent or another, each relied on exalting one or more individuals to attain his end. I need more than that kind of phrase to evaluate whether a society is great, or a philosophy is any good."
Indeed, but where they failed was in understanding the basic equality and fairness that must logically be employed for essentially identical objects. All people are essentially the same in this moral sense and therefore ought to be treated similarly.
It is only when you are operating under bias or incorrect data that you can conclude that some minority should be treated fundamentally differently - and therefore unfairly - from the majority.
This, of course, though is only a general principle and there are exceptions - like age or mental handicaps and so on where the minority is truly different and therefore deserves distinct standards.
The point is, and I think I made this clear the first time, that the greater human society is not a moral goal by itself but only makes sense with the complementary goal of the greatness for the individuals who compose society on their own terms. There is a symbiotic relationship between the individual and society and pursuing one at the expense of the other ultimately damages both.
---
From here.
Survival would, from a Darwinian perspective, appear to be a 'legitimate' purpose. All other purposes, from that perspective, would have to be artificial constructs. It would seem to me, then, that there could be no objective way of evaluating their relative merits beyond their respective capacities to amuse me."
'Survival' is just an urge we have inherited from our Darwinian origins, if you want to look at it that way. But why should we follow the dictates of some inefficient natural system anymore than we should insist that we cannot use technology since it was artificially created?
Artificial just means "man made" not "fake."
As I see it, pursuit of a greater human society in conjunction with pursuit of the greatness of the individual is the goal of morality. And so much of what makes us great - or can make us great - are things artificially created. In fact, the things that make me most proud of being human are things that human beings have made and done and not the powers we have inherited from nature.
----
"Rather high-falutin' stuff, Orthoprax. But I have some difficulty distinguishing it from anybody else's high-falutin' stuff.
In the end, Plato, Gandhi, Stalin, Hitler, Jefferson and a host of others all sought a "greater human society." To some extent or another, each relied on exalting one or more individuals to attain his end. I need more than that kind of phrase to evaluate whether a society is great, or a philosophy is any good."
Indeed, but where they failed was in understanding the basic equality and fairness that must logically be employed for essentially identical objects. All people are essentially the same in this moral sense and therefore ought to be treated similarly.
It is only when you are operating under bias or incorrect data that you can conclude that some minority should be treated fundamentally differently - and therefore unfairly - from the majority.
This, of course, though is only a general principle and there are exceptions - like age or mental handicaps and so on where the minority is truly different and therefore deserves distinct standards.
The point is, and I think I made this clear the first time, that the greater human society is not a moral goal by itself but only makes sense with the complementary goal of the greatness for the individuals who compose society on their own terms. There is a symbiotic relationship between the individual and society and pursuing one at the expense of the other ultimately damages both.
---
From here.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Living in a Material World
CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) -- Melissa Greenwood sees it every day at her high school -- the hyper-focus on designer labels, the must-have trendy cell phones, the classmates driving SUVs.
You could say it's just teens being teens. But new polls show that the obsession with material things is growing -- and that being rich is more important to today's young people than in the past.
UCLA's annual survey of college freshman, released last Friday, found that nearly three-quarters of those surveyed in 2006 thought it was essential or very important to be "very well-off financially." That compares with 62.5 percent who said the same in 1980 and 42 percent in 1966, the first year the survey was done.
Another recent poll from the Pew Research Center found that about 80 percent of 18- to 25-year-olds in this country see getting rich as a top life goal for their generation.
...
Tim Barello, a 24-year-old New Yorker, agrees that his generation has gotten caught up in wanting "more and more and more."
Having grown up on Long Island's wealthy North Shore, he thought he'd arrived when he got a job as a publicist and was able to rent an apartment in an exclusive apartment building in Manhattan.
"To be completely honest," he says, "I don't even appreciate everything I have sometimes.
"Yes, I have a nice apartment, a great job, a great degree, great clothing. But I feel empty inside rather often."
[Source]
Blech.
How embarrassing. A generation full of condiments and no food...
You could say it's just teens being teens. But new polls show that the obsession with material things is growing -- and that being rich is more important to today's young people than in the past.
UCLA's annual survey of college freshman, released last Friday, found that nearly three-quarters of those surveyed in 2006 thought it was essential or very important to be "very well-off financially." That compares with 62.5 percent who said the same in 1980 and 42 percent in 1966, the first year the survey was done.
Another recent poll from the Pew Research Center found that about 80 percent of 18- to 25-year-olds in this country see getting rich as a top life goal for their generation.
...
Tim Barello, a 24-year-old New Yorker, agrees that his generation has gotten caught up in wanting "more and more and more."
Having grown up on Long Island's wealthy North Shore, he thought he'd arrived when he got a job as a publicist and was able to rent an apartment in an exclusive apartment building in Manhattan.
"To be completely honest," he says, "I don't even appreciate everything I have sometimes.
"Yes, I have a nice apartment, a great job, a great degree, great clothing. But I feel empty inside rather often."
[Source]
Blech.
How embarrassing. A generation full of condiments and no food...
Thursday, January 18, 2007
Mr. Deity and the Evil
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Designer Babies
So I was eating dinner recently with my family and my brother-in-law begins talking about a show he saw recently about embryology and the development of the fetus in the womb. So naturally I, with my recent introduction to some of the most spectacular aspects of embryology, eagerly join in the discussion. It is truly an incredible feat to behold; to see all the inscrutable parts of a person mold themselves into position and function with such synchronal grace. So he concludes that it's a wonder anyone can not see the implicit design there.
My mother then speaks up, referencing a previous discussion I had with her, about how a high number of physicians are atheists. Sam Harris puts the number at 60% of US physicians who believe in a personal God, though I'm not sure where he gets his numbers since a recent survey puts the number at 76% of US doctors who believe in God. Perhaps he's putting his stock on the afterlife question of which only 59% of doctors state belief.
Curiously, Sam Harris' issue is why the number is so high as compared to other groups highly educated in the sciences. He hypothesizes that it is the nature of the doctor's job, which deals with death on so regular a basis, that leads them to faith. Yet my brother's-in-law issue is why the number is so low. He hypothesizes that perhaps doctors need to feel in control and are not comfortable with a higher power. (Though, of course, that hypothesis is a non sequitur since recognition of design has nothing to do with perception of control.)
Personally, I suspect the reason why the number is lower than the US average is because of education and higher than other fields of science because of selective issues. The ethic of medicine, helping the sick etc, is an idea that resonates well in many religious traditions. More religious people are attracted to medicine than they would be to the natural sciences.
Anyway, back to the story at hand. I have to point out that my brother-in-law is solidly MO. He saw the embryological tail and gill arches and said, "Gee, I wonder what we used to be?" But the point is that the wonder of embryological formation is truly, well, a wonder. The intuitive conclusion of design is easy to understand.
But as we bask in the awe of miraculous design, few people are willing to see the results of when things don't go according to plan. The fact is that errors in embryological development are common. Things can go missing, stuff can form badly, there can be too much of something else - and the consequences can be horrifying. I trust that I don't need to pull out some gruesome photographs. We've all seen the horrors that embryological malformation can produce.
How do theists deal with it?
In a time not too long ago, such birth defects were considered a sign from the supernatural. An omen of bad times to come or a punishment for sins committed. Indeed, the old non-PC word to describe such unfortunates was Monster, which originally meant sign or omen from the Latin root monere, to warn.
Yet this approach is no longer acceptable nowadays.
Even diseases, the staple of superstitious belief in the wrath of God, are now understood mechanistically. People don't get sick because they did something wrong. Diseases can strike anyone. Our bodies are machines. Marvelously complicated and incredible machines, but machines nonetheless. We become ill when we make too much of something or not enough of something else. When our internal defense system gets confused or when some individual part starts acting up. When something gets clogged or tears or breaks. This is what makes us sick.
Is it not clear that our bodies' ongoing maintenance is running on autopilot? When a car breaks down we don't suppose the car deserved it. It's a machine - one much simpler than the human body of course - and things go wrong. The longer you keep using it the odds of something going seriously wrong is inevitable. So we die.
Embryological development, as amazing as it is and as much as it instills in me the desire to cry 'Mah rabu maasecha Adonai!', it must be recognized that it too is running on autopilot. There's no need for some complex metaphysical explanation. When mindless machines are running on their own - shit happens. That's why doctors need to exist in the first place.
I find the human body to be an incredible machine and it amazes me that people can so easily dismiss such incredible things under the matrix of cosmic happenstance, but does it lead me to see a personal God and a theistic outlook on the universe? Hardly.
My mother then speaks up, referencing a previous discussion I had with her, about how a high number of physicians are atheists. Sam Harris puts the number at 60% of US physicians who believe in a personal God, though I'm not sure where he gets his numbers since a recent survey puts the number at 76% of US doctors who believe in God. Perhaps he's putting his stock on the afterlife question of which only 59% of doctors state belief.
Curiously, Sam Harris' issue is why the number is so high as compared to other groups highly educated in the sciences. He hypothesizes that it is the nature of the doctor's job, which deals with death on so regular a basis, that leads them to faith. Yet my brother's-in-law issue is why the number is so low. He hypothesizes that perhaps doctors need to feel in control and are not comfortable with a higher power. (Though, of course, that hypothesis is a non sequitur since recognition of design has nothing to do with perception of control.)
Personally, I suspect the reason why the number is lower than the US average is because of education and higher than other fields of science because of selective issues. The ethic of medicine, helping the sick etc, is an idea that resonates well in many religious traditions. More religious people are attracted to medicine than they would be to the natural sciences.
Anyway, back to the story at hand. I have to point out that my brother-in-law is solidly MO. He saw the embryological tail and gill arches and said, "Gee, I wonder what we used to be?" But the point is that the wonder of embryological formation is truly, well, a wonder. The intuitive conclusion of design is easy to understand.
But as we bask in the awe of miraculous design, few people are willing to see the results of when things don't go according to plan. The fact is that errors in embryological development are common. Things can go missing, stuff can form badly, there can be too much of something else - and the consequences can be horrifying. I trust that I don't need to pull out some gruesome photographs. We've all seen the horrors that embryological malformation can produce.
How do theists deal with it?
In a time not too long ago, such birth defects were considered a sign from the supernatural. An omen of bad times to come or a punishment for sins committed. Indeed, the old non-PC word to describe such unfortunates was Monster, which originally meant sign or omen from the Latin root monere, to warn.
Yet this approach is no longer acceptable nowadays.
Even diseases, the staple of superstitious belief in the wrath of God, are now understood mechanistically. People don't get sick because they did something wrong. Diseases can strike anyone. Our bodies are machines. Marvelously complicated and incredible machines, but machines nonetheless. We become ill when we make too much of something or not enough of something else. When our internal defense system gets confused or when some individual part starts acting up. When something gets clogged or tears or breaks. This is what makes us sick.
Is it not clear that our bodies' ongoing maintenance is running on autopilot? When a car breaks down we don't suppose the car deserved it. It's a machine - one much simpler than the human body of course - and things go wrong. The longer you keep using it the odds of something going seriously wrong is inevitable. So we die.
Embryological development, as amazing as it is and as much as it instills in me the desire to cry 'Mah rabu maasecha Adonai!', it must be recognized that it too is running on autopilot. There's no need for some complex metaphysical explanation. When mindless machines are running on their own - shit happens. That's why doctors need to exist in the first place.
I find the human body to be an incredible machine and it amazes me that people can so easily dismiss such incredible things under the matrix of cosmic happenstance, but does it lead me to see a personal God and a theistic outlook on the universe? Hardly.
Morality; What's in it for Me?
It has occurred to me that in many of the metaethical discussions that I've seen and participated with online a point of contention is always about the justifications for morality. Why should I be moral? Yet what underlies that simple phrase in so many times is really a selfish "What do I get out of being moral?" There lies a selfish self-centered conception of morality where one will only act morally if there is some benefit to themselves.
This, naturally, is seen in its purist form when it comes to the religious carrot and stick conception of morality. If I do good I will go to heaven and enjoy eternal bliss. If I do bad I will go to hell and suffer forever. Some religions have a more subdued metaphysical equation. Perhaps it's not eternal suffering, but simply a ceased existence. And perhaps it isn't 'heaven' or physical pleasures, but a higher unison with the Almighty. Whatever the equation is for each particular religious tradition (at least Western religions) it invariably levels with it being in the individual's best interests to live morally.
And this isn't found solely in religious traditions. Objectivism and even some forms of Utilitarianism can be seen as arguing for an 'enlightened self-interest' which is simply saying that being moral eventually leads to you being better off. Again, we see morality being put to the service of oneself.
Now in any of these cases, the justifications for moral activity may be very effective and people may act very morally, but I think that their moral theory is rotten.
Morality should not be about bettering one's own state. For if it is then it really is not distinct from making a sound fiscal investment or making friends with powerful people. It becomes a tool and not an end in itself. This is a rotten moral theory that has not gotten past the 'What's in it for me?' conception of life.
As I see it, morality has to be about what is right in a sense that transcends the personal. If I act morally, it shouldn't be because I get something out of it - though I might. Morality is about the other, for the other people in involves, for the other ends for which it increases value. One's own desires and goals should be only secondary to moral principles. If morality is about 'what it does for me' then it ceases to be a discussion of morality at all.
This, naturally, is seen in its purist form when it comes to the religious carrot and stick conception of morality. If I do good I will go to heaven and enjoy eternal bliss. If I do bad I will go to hell and suffer forever. Some religions have a more subdued metaphysical equation. Perhaps it's not eternal suffering, but simply a ceased existence. And perhaps it isn't 'heaven' or physical pleasures, but a higher unison with the Almighty. Whatever the equation is for each particular religious tradition (at least Western religions) it invariably levels with it being in the individual's best interests to live morally.
And this isn't found solely in religious traditions. Objectivism and even some forms of Utilitarianism can be seen as arguing for an 'enlightened self-interest' which is simply saying that being moral eventually leads to you being better off. Again, we see morality being put to the service of oneself.
Now in any of these cases, the justifications for moral activity may be very effective and people may act very morally, but I think that their moral theory is rotten.
Morality should not be about bettering one's own state. For if it is then it really is not distinct from making a sound fiscal investment or making friends with powerful people. It becomes a tool and not an end in itself. This is a rotten moral theory that has not gotten past the 'What's in it for me?' conception of life.
As I see it, morality has to be about what is right in a sense that transcends the personal. If I act morally, it shouldn't be because I get something out of it - though I might. Morality is about the other, for the other people in involves, for the other ends for which it increases value. One's own desires and goals should be only secondary to moral principles. If morality is about 'what it does for me' then it ceases to be a discussion of morality at all.
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Halachic Holes
Consider for a moment what it would mean for the omniscient creator of the universe to design a system for living for the denizens of the universe. As I think of it, the system would be perfectly in tune with the way the universe works on a standard basis. Everything the people of the universe would come in contact with would fit perfectly into roles and categories designed by the omniscient creator and there would be no grey areas. Things would always work out. See, if the universe, people and the rules for people in the universe to live by were all composed by the same omniscient source, we should not expect any contradictions or problems between what the rules order and what reality is, right?
For example, if such a creator were to design a system that differentiates between men and women, and differentiates strongly at that, I would think the way of the universe would never allow for some grey area where the individual could be neither a male or female or both male and female, right? The situation should simply never come up. And yet it does. While relatively rare, individuals are born with intersexual anatomies that run the entire gamut between male and female. It is even possible, and cases have been documented, that a person can be born with one testes and one ovary.
If prayers were supposed to be given every day at specific times of the day depending on the placement of the Sun in the sky during the course of the day then I would think that there could never be a situation where a person could be living in a place where such a system wasn't in effect. Yet there are such places. At the higher latitudes there can be instances where the Sun doesn't set for six months or alternatively when it doesn't rise for six months. And then of course there is all that space outside of the Earth where one may not experience any sort of planetary revolution at all.
The point I'm making about all of this is that Halacha has certain assumptions built into it regarding the way of the world that never would have been assumed by the omniscient creator. If God was writing Halacha or otherwise ensuring its correctness through the ages it would never have these categorical errors in the first place. Prayer times would never have been defined by the position of the Sun because that's only useful in special cases. And otherwise, if the system required male or female in black and white terms, the world would not be designed in such a way that male and female status could be unclear. If God is the creator of both the world and Halacha then there should not be this disconnect which seems exactly like humans took their false or biased understanding of the world and built a legal system around that impression.
Now, of course, there are Halachic 'patches' for these and similar issues. If you go to the North Pole just follow the zmanim you would from where you come from. But this misses the point. You don't need patches on a perfect system. The point again is that these are categorical misapprehensions of the way the world works. Something an omniscient creator could never have done.
For example, if such a creator were to design a system that differentiates between men and women, and differentiates strongly at that, I would think the way of the universe would never allow for some grey area where the individual could be neither a male or female or both male and female, right? The situation should simply never come up. And yet it does. While relatively rare, individuals are born with intersexual anatomies that run the entire gamut between male and female. It is even possible, and cases have been documented, that a person can be born with one testes and one ovary.
If prayers were supposed to be given every day at specific times of the day depending on the placement of the Sun in the sky during the course of the day then I would think that there could never be a situation where a person could be living in a place where such a system wasn't in effect. Yet there are such places. At the higher latitudes there can be instances where the Sun doesn't set for six months or alternatively when it doesn't rise for six months. And then of course there is all that space outside of the Earth where one may not experience any sort of planetary revolution at all.
The point I'm making about all of this is that Halacha has certain assumptions built into it regarding the way of the world that never would have been assumed by the omniscient creator. If God was writing Halacha or otherwise ensuring its correctness through the ages it would never have these categorical errors in the first place. Prayer times would never have been defined by the position of the Sun because that's only useful in special cases. And otherwise, if the system required male or female in black and white terms, the world would not be designed in such a way that male and female status could be unclear. If God is the creator of both the world and Halacha then there should not be this disconnect which seems exactly like humans took their false or biased understanding of the world and built a legal system around that impression.
Now, of course, there are Halachic 'patches' for these and similar issues. If you go to the North Pole just follow the zmanim you would from where you come from. But this misses the point. You don't need patches on a perfect system. The point again is that these are categorical misapprehensions of the way the world works. Something an omniscient creator could never have done.
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
