God: The Failed Hypothesis: Book Review

I just read an excellent book, God: The Failed Hypothesis. The author brings a wide range of arguments against The God Hypothesis from a number of scientific disciplines. There are also a few chapters discussing the oft-heard claim that religion leads to superior morality. Y'know, all that chreft. I excerpt heavily from those chapters, and not as heavily from the others, mostly because I think it is primarily emotional "arguments" like those that keep people on the d, and more importantly, scares them away from questioning.

The religions of the world have laid claim to the role of arbiters of human behavior, and their leaders continually decry the moral decay they claim to see in society. They insist they have the right to tell us what is right and what is wrong because they have a special pipeline to the place where right and wrong are defined—in the mind of God.

Even secular institutions pay tribute to this claim. Whenever a moral issue arises in politics, such as stem cell research or when to end life support, clergy are called upon to provide their wisdom. On the other hand, the opinions of atheists, freethinkers, and humanists are rarely solicited—and frequently reviled.

The implication is that atheists and humanists are somehow undesirable members of society, people you would not want to invite into your house. According to lawyer Phillip Johnson, non-believers actually think humans came from monkeys, which is the source of many of the “evils” of modern society, including homosexuality, abortion, pornography, divorce, and genocide—as if the world had none of these before Darwin came along.

However common may be the view that religion is the source of moral behavior, what do the data say? I have seen no evidence that nonbelievers commit crimes or other antisocial acts in greater proportion than believers. Indeed, some studies indicate the opposite. According to statistics from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Christians make up almost 80% of the prison population. Atheists make up about 0.2 percent. It is to be admitted that these data are not published in a scientific journal, but I think it is safe to conclude that the godless do not fill prisons. Published studies do indicate that a child’s risk of sexual abuse by a family member increases as the family’s religious denomination becomes more conservative, that is, when the teachings of scriptures and other doctrines are taken more literally. Similarly, the probability of wife abuse increases with the rigidity of a church’s teachings pertaining to gender roles and hierarchy.

But let me not rely solely on sociological statistics, where correlation does not always imply connection given all the mitigating factors. Even observers from the Christian side have expressed dismay that the current dominance of evangelical Christianity in America has not translated into a strengthening of the nation’s moral character or the characters of evangelical Christians themselves. In an article in Christianity Today, theologian Ronald Sider lamented: “Scandalous behavior is rapidly destroying American Christianity. By their daily activities, most ‘Christians’ regularly commit treason. With their mouths they claim that Jesus is Lord, but with their actions they demonstrate allegiance to money, sex, and self-fulfillment.” Sider continues

The findings in numerous national polls conducted by highly respected pollsters like The Gallup Organization and The Barna Group are simply shocking. “Gallup and Barna,” laments evangelical theologian Michael Horton, “hand us survey after survey demonstrating that evangelical Christians are as likely to embrace lifestyles every bit as hedonistic, materialistic, self-centered, and sexually immoral as the world in general. Divorce is *more* common among “born-again” Christians than in the general American population. Only 6 percent of evangelicals tithe. White evangelicals are the *most* likely people to object to neighbors of another race. Josh McDowell has pointed out that the sexual promiscuity of evangelical youth is only a little less outrageous than that of their nonevangelical peers.

It is not my purpose in this chapter to say how humans ought to behave. Rather I am acting as a scientist, observing how they do behave and asking what those observations tell us about the truth or falsity of the God hypothesis. In this regard, I reject the notion that science has nothing to do with morality.

Preachers tell us that any universal moral standards can only come from one source—their particular God. Otherwise, standards would be relative, depending on culture and differing across cultures and individuals. The data, however, indicate that the majority of human beings from all cultures and religions or no religion agree on a common set of moral standards. While specific differences can be found, universal norms do seem to exist. Anthropologist Solomon Asch has observed, “We do not know of societies in which bravery is despised and cowardice held up to honor, in which generosity is considered a vice and ingratitude a virtue."

While we live in a society of law, much of what we do is not constrained by law but performed voluntarily. For example, we have many opportunities to cheat and steal in situations where the chance of being caught is negligible, yet most of us do not cheat and steal. While the Golden Rule is not usually obeyed to the letter, we generally do not try to harm others. Indeed, we are sympathetic when we see a person or animal in distress and take action to provide relief. We stop at auto accidents and render aid. We call the police when we witness a crime. We take care of children, aged parents, and others less fortunate than us. We willingly take on risky jobs, such as in the military or public safety, for the protection of the community.

That stealing from members of your own community is immoral requires no divine revelation. It is revealed by a moment’s reflection on the type of society that would exist if everyone stole from one another. If lying were considered a virtue instead of truth-telling, communication would become impossible. Mothers have loved their children since before mammals walked the earth—for obvious evolutionary reasons. The only precepts unique to religion are those telling us not to question their dogma.

Of course, not everyone agrees on every moral issue. These disagreements can be very pronounced, especially within specific religious communities where the same scriptural readings are often used to justify contradictory actions.

For example, consider the opposing interpretations of the commandment against killing found within the Christian community. Conservative Protestants interpret this commandment as prohibiting abortion, stem cell research, and removing life support systems from the incurable, among other actions. However, they do not view capital punishment as prohibited, pointing to the biblical prescription of an eye for an eye. Catholics and liberal Christians, on the other hand, generally interpret the commandment as forbidding capital punishment. But Catholics oppose while Liberals allow abortion, the removal of life support, and stem cell research. In all these cases, the Bible is evidently ambiguous.

As philosopher Theodore Schick Jr. points out, both sides of the abortion debate believe murder is immoral. Where they disagree is on the nature of the fetus—whether or not it is the sort of entity that can be murdered. In other words, moral disagreements are often not about what is good or bad but about some other aspect of reality.

So how do Christians decide what is right or wrong? While they may look at the Bible, how they interpret what they read must depend on ideals that they have already developed from some other source.

The Judeo-Christian and Islamic scriptures contain many passages that teach noble ideals that the human race has done well to adopt as norms of behavior and, where appropriate, to codify into law. But without exception, the fact that these principles developed in earlier cultures and history indicates that they were adopted by—rather than learned from—religion. While it is fine that religions preach moral precepts, they have no basis to claim that these precepts were authored by their particular deity, or indeed, any deity at all. (197)

Few modern Christians take the commands of the Bible literally. While they claim to appeal to scriptures and the teachings of the great founders and leaders of their faiths, they pick and choose what to follow—guided by some personal inner light. And this is the same inner light that guides nonbelievers...

The Vatican’s teachings on a number of subjects, including contraception, the ordination of women, and homosexuality, are out of step with the beliefs and lifestyles of most American Catholics. But the Americans mostly find a way to stay in their faith by adhering to values most important to them and quietly ignoring those they disagree with.

The Bible is not clear on what may be killed and what may not be. It does not explicitly sanction or forbid the killing of a fetus or stem cell. And, it certainly sanctions the killing of enemies, specifically those who do not worship Yahweh.

In all these cases, Christians clearly read the Bible to find support for moral principles that they have already developed from some other source.

Christians draw Jesus Christ in their own image. As philosopher George Smith explains, “Because of the theological obligation to endorse the precepts of Jesus, Christian theologians have a strong tendency to read their own moral conviction into the ethics of Jesus. Jesus is made to say what theologians think he should have said…”

As George Bernard Shaw commented, “No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says. He is always convinced that it says what he means.”

Every time a theologian reinterprets Moses, or Jesus, or Muhammad, he further reinforces my crucial point: we humans decide what is good by standards lying outside the scriptures.

Believers are guided by their consciences in deciding for themselves what is right and wrong, just as are nonbelievers. The basic notions of good and evil that we all share—believers and nonbelievers—are, for the most part, common and universal. Psychological tests indicate that there are no significant differences in the moral sense between atheists and theists.

In short, the empirical facts indicate that most humans are moral animals whose sense of right and wrong conflicts with many of the teachings of the great monotheistic religions. We can safely conclude they did not originate at that source.

If human morals and values do not arise out of divine command, then where do they come from? They come from our common humanity. They can properly be called humanistic.

A considerable literature exists on the natural (biological, cultural, evolutionary) origins of morality. Darwin saw the evolutionary advantage of cooperation and altruism,. Modern thinkers have elaborated on this observation, showing in detail how our moral sense can have arisen naturally during the development of modern humanity.

We can even see signs of moral, or protomoral behavior in animals. Vampire bats share food. Apes and monkeys comfort members of their group who are upset and work together to get food. Dolphins push sick members of a pod to the surface to get air. Whales will put themselves in harm’s way to help a wounded member of their group. Elephants try their best to save injured members of their families.

In these examples, we glimpse the beginnings of the morality that advanced to higher levels with human evolution. You may call animal morality instinctive, built into the genes of animals by biological evolution. But when we include cultural evolution as well, we have a plausible mechanism for the development of human morality—by Darwinian selection.

It seems likely that this is where we humans have learned our sense of right and wrong. W have taught it to ourselves.

Since Thomas Aquinas, theologians have claimed that the very fact that humans have a moral conscience can be taken as evidence for the existence of God…

However, I have turned that argument on its head. The very fact that humans have a common moral conscience can be taken as evidence against the existence of God.

As we have seen from an examination of the empirical evidence, God cannot be the source of commonly accepted human morals and values. If he were, then we would expect to see evidence in the superior moral behavior of believers compared to nonbelievers. Even if you deny that any discrepancy exists between the behavior of believers and what is taught in their scriptures, the empirical fact that nonbelievers show themselves to be no less virtuous provides strong evidence that morals and values come from humanity itself. Observable human and societal behaviors look just as they can be expected to look if there is no God. (210)

Morality and religion may have evolved together. We can easily imagine, and history seems to confirm, that religion was the means by which good behavior—“good” usually being defined by whomever was in power at the time—was enforced. Even in modern times we see the remnants of this unholy alliance, with world leaders asserting divine authority for their actions and people still falling for it. By claiming divine authority, politicians are able to promote policies of dubious value that the public might otherwise find unacceptable…While I wish people were less gullible, less willing to believe in the most preposterous supernatural notions, I still have a high regard for the basic decency of human beings. Many people are good. But they are not good because of religion. They are good despite religion. (248)

Many theists claim that, without God, humans would seek only bodily pleasure and other selfish interests, But that is not the nature of a social animal. We seek pleasure in the society of others and we empathize with others suffering. With the evolution of civilization, we have an enormous range of wonderful and important activities in which we can participate. I got my curiosity from the same place as cats, but I’ve been able to pursue mine into the deepest questions about the nature of the universe with the help of multimillion-dollar instruments and thousands of other scientists. Far from providing us meaningful goals, religions prescribe tribal values: amity for our tribe; enmity for other tribes; mind-closing faith; abject worship of authority.

God is not necessary for someone to find fulfillment in contemplation or social activity. Ethical philosopher Peter Singer emphasizes that “[we] can live a meaningful life by working toward goals that are objectively worthwhile.” One of the ways he suggests is quite simple, namely, to work to reduce avoidable suffering. This, he claims, is an objectively worthwhile goal that can provide inner meaning and, furthermore, can be done whether or not God exists. (252)

Unfortunately, science cannot confirm the Christian-Islamic promise that we one day will be reunited with departed loved ones and live eternally in the bosom of our creator. The rational prospect of life after death is close to nil. But, at least, science can assure us that the many who happened to choose the wrong God will not be tortured through all eternity—that those millions who lived and died before the jealous God was invented will rest in peace. As an atheist T-shirt says, “Smile. There is no hell.”

Science can help us to live a better life with the years we have. No doubt most of humanity today enjoys longer lives in greater comfort and pleasure as the direct result of scientific advances (such as evolution) than it would in the absence of those advances—especially if humanity had relied solely on religious teachings. If science has brought with it new problems, such as overpopulation, pollution, and the threat of nuclear holocaust, few people suggest we do away with science to avoid those consequences. Hopefully they can be avoided with the help of science and wise political actions.

Additionally, by ridding the world of superstition, science helps us live in less fear of the unknown. Humans no longer cower in the back of a cave during an electrical storm—and they know enough to get off the golf course. People are no longer burned at the stake when accused of heresy or witchcraft. By ridding the world of God, science helps us to control our own lives rather than submitting them to the arbitrary authority of priests and kings who justify their acts by divine will. (254)

Even though science is a valuable tool available to most of humanity, only a tiny few find it a source of inspiration and even fewer a source of comfort. Religion, on the other hand, is supposed to provide comfort for all. However, religious comfort is not all that it is cracked up to be. In a recent study, psychologists found that highly religious Protestants exhibit more symptoms of obsessive-compulsive disorder than the less religious or nonreligious. The promise of life after death carries with it the dread that the afterworld will be spent elsewhere than in the bosom of God. Everyone is a sinner, and even the most cloistered nun lives with the nagging worry that she might not be forgiven for that occasional impious thought that slips into her head between endless recitations of the Hail Mary. Likewise, the believer in reincarnation might sometimes worry about living his next life as a rodent. The Muslim suicide bomber has been led to believe that he is guaranteed paradise by his murderous action. On the other hand, the atheist has the comfort of no fears of an afterlife and lacks any compulsion to blow himself up. (257)

Take this, Garnel

Fascinating essay about many of the problems with the doctrines of Orthodox Judaism. Read it and weep.

Sam Harris on Accomodationists

"I realize that my tone of chastisement has probably grown very tedious and could be mistaken for hostility. But I can't help but feel that there is a great asymmetry between our points of view - both in how fully they have been thought out and in their degree of the moral seriousness. I see the perpetuation of ancient tribalism and ignorance (read "religion") to be a grave problem, and the source of much unnecessary suffering in the world; you claim that the problem is either not very serious or that it is unavoidable--in either case there is not much to be done. You do not seem to see what an astonishing number of the world's conflicts and missed opportunities arise from people's false knowledge about God, and when specific instances are pointed out to you, you deem them to be inevitable (if it's not religion it would be something else), or you defensively say, well of course I object to that instance of religious stupidity: parents shouldn't withhold blood transfusions from their children!... But the truth is, a comprehensive response to the problem of religious ignorance is possible, and a piecemeal response is totally unprincipled and bound to seem so. Our world has be shattered, and is reliably shattered anew with each subsequent generation, by irreconcilable claims about God and his magic books. Until we stop enabling these competing delusions--by our silence and by our silly attempts to change the subject--we will have no one to blame but ourselves when medieval ideas come crashing into public life--as they do, and will, to our great detriment."

Taken from here.

Very Interesting

Right around the seven minute mark, the rabbi lets out a bold-faced lie. "Every single Jewish kid knows about evolution, and is taught about it, and has studied it, and has looked at it." I know thousands of Jewish kids that have not been taught about evolution whatsoever, rabbi. Any other lies, sir? He also displays a glaring ignorance of evolution, himself.

Fascinating Video

First half especially.

Two posts

Here are two posts from the OTD blogosphere that I recently read and enjoyed.

I think there is a great need for OTD blogs, as religion has a long history of thought and publications, and there's no shortage of resources for those who are interested in finding religious resources. However, there are very few places to find OTD content, and one of the only mediums available to us is the internet. That's why I'm more than happy to encourage people to blog, and to help you get your name out there. You shouldn't have to wait months to get a few readers.

Link

Link

The Tenacity of Unreasonable Beliefs - Book Review

I just read an excellent book, The Tenacity of Unreasonable Beliefs. The author, himself an OTDer, focuses on the three Abrahamic religions, why they believe the things they do, and how they stifle doubt and questioning amongst themselves and others.

In keeping with my book reviewing tradition, here are some excerpts. (I wonder if I can get my ass sued.)

Skeptics use a range of arguments to argue against the veridicality of religious experience. They maintain that many reported religious experiences are nothing more than expressions of some pathology, such as delusions or an altered state of consciousness induced by a drug or an unusual physiological state. Some claim that the reported religious experiences and their underlying doctrinal assumptions serve common psychological needs, such as the need for love or for security, or the alleviation of a sense of guilt or rejection, and that the satisfaction of these needs suffices to account for religious experiences and beliefs without assuming the existence of God or the reality of a divine encounter or revelation. Skeptics also argue against the credibility of religious experiences and associated truth claims on the grounds that the experiences and beliefs of most people tend to be similar or identical to those described and espoused by the religions and religious communities into which they have been socialized, making it highly probable that what and how one experiences as a religious experience, revelation, or belief system is culturally determined rather than divinely begotten. Moreover, given the variety of religions, with their various unique experiential expectations and belief systems that often make contradictory and mutually incompatible claims, it is more plausible to explain religious experiences as products of cultural learning, and culturally learned suggestibility, than actual revelation of God. (p. 27)


Why do so many modern Orthodox scientists, and modern Orthodox academics in fields of Jewish studies, continue to affirm the traditional doctrine that the Pentateuch was divinely revealed by God to Moses in the thirteenth century BCE (TMS, Torah to Moses at Sinai) in the face of overwhelming evidence against it from the fields of modern biblical scholarship, comparative religious studies, psychology, anthropology, philosophy, and the natural sciences? Why do the modern Orthodox resist the multiple-source/post-Mosaic /human-authorship view (MSPM)? After all, these Orthodox scientists and scholars are committed to empirically based, scientific and scholarly methods of examining and accounting for evidence. They apply rigorous logic and criteria for plausibility in their professional fields. Yet when it comes to TMS versus MSPM, they seem unable or unwilling to acknowledge the implausibility of their belief. (39)


Giving up belief in TMS can be very painful, especially if one declares it publicly. Among its consequences can be loss of existential meaning and purpose, denial of one’s past, the shattering of one’s core self-identity, guilt, shame, disruption of family stability and relationships, social ostracism, and loss of professional or financial standing. This is especially the case for individuals who have invested their best energies in studying Torah or in teaching, preaching, and educating others in the faith. The more intensely one was committed to the dogma, the harder it is to admit that it is false. (52)


Is the modern Orthodox affirmation that God revealed the Torah to Moses at Sinai a statement about an alleged objective historical occurrence, in which case it should be subjected to the criteria for plausibility that are applied by the modern Orthodox for other statements about historical events. Or is it a subjective affirmation that it is important and meaningful to the believer that he or she believe in TMS, but with the cognizance that the belief is not subject to falsification or verification by the methods of science, scholarship, or philosophy? If the latter is admitted to be the case, then how can the modern Orthodox maintain that their belief is the only true and “authentic” one, which in principle all Jews (and indeed, all humans) are obligated to affirm, and that those who do not affirm it and the commandments (mitzvot) that follow from it, should, at least in principle, be punished, as mandated by the Bible and by rabbinic law? After all, what may be subjectively meaningful to modern Orthodox Jews may not be so to others, who may have their own subjectively meaningful belief systems, or even none at all. (66)


It is fascinating and sad to see the minds of these fundamentalist inerrantists in action. Hundreds of books, thousands of pages, myriads of hours, and millions of brain cells are devoted to defending, on ostensibly rational grounds, contradictions in the Bible, inconsistencies in their own dogmas, circularity in their reasoning, absurdities in their conclusions, cruelty in their doctrines, and selfishness in their social visions. They scurry to and fro with their inane “logic” and “proofs,” defending themselves against criticism instead of acknowledging their errors. Some of them militantly crusade against (verbally—not physically) leading academic scholars of the Bible, biologists who teach evolution, and school boards who want our children to receive a proper scientific education in biology. Many of these fundamentalists are “smart.” Why are they then so “stupid”? Why is rationality so fragile? (108)


Fundamentalists tend to have an either/or approach to Christian truth. If the Bible is wholly inerrant and wholly infallible in its teachings, then and only then does it have any religious value and authority. If it is shown to be errant, or fallible, even to the slightest degree, it no longer is a source of religious significance and has no claim on our belief or behavior. Such an either/or approach lends itself to intolerance of non-Christians, and even of nonfundamentalist Christians. Everyone except fundamentalists are guilty of the sin of denying God, and will be consigned to eternal damnation in Hell. (114)


Whence this passionate commitment to defend and spread the faith? The simplest explanation for outreach efforts is that they are motivated by the traditional value that all Jews are responsible for the spiritual (as well as material) well-being of one another. In addition, many people who experience a way of life that they find meaningful and enjoyable like to share it with others—people can be altruistic. However, given the evidence for increased commitment and proselytizing in the face of threats to one’s belief system, it is reasonable to assume that this phenomenon exists in Orthodox outreach as well. Is it possible that some of the most passionate Orthodox devotees of outreach are themselves harboring doubts about the beliefs that they are trying to preach to others? Moreover, increased commitment as a response to doubt needn’t be reflected only in outreach, but in other manifestations as well. Perhaps unrelenting, passionate defenders of the faith--ever eager and ready to take up the cause of defending Orthodoxy against all who question its validity—might be suppressing their own doubts, conscious or unconscious, with their zeal. Some religious people are threatened by their own doubts, or by the heresy or apostasy of others, or by the mere existence of other religions, or by secular indifference to religion, whereas others are not. My sense is that it is actually those who feel threatened who feel a need to missionize, or to condemn, or to coerce, or to engage in polemics and apologetics. (172)


This is especially the case with those fundamentalist Jews, Christians, and Muslims who live in isolated communal enclaves, who exhibit the same lack of critical self-reflection as the Azande, and who are baffled when they learn that not everyone believes as they do. However, given the ubiquity of the “outside world” that is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore because of the easy accessibility of information via twenty-first century technologies of communication, these enclaves of the Abrahamic faiths will be under increasing pressure to defend their axiomatic beliefs rather than accept them uncritically. One sees this in recent years in the proliferation of forums and blogs in which fundamentalist Jews, Christians, and Muslims are battling to defend their beliefs against attack. Moreover, the relative anonymity of the Internet has provided an opportunity for doubters from within to voice their doubts openly and it is fascinating to follow some of these postings and discussions. Religious doubters who would not have the inclination or the courage to raise the questions they do about the beliefs in which they were socialized, or about the wisdom, and hence the authority of the religious leaders of their communities or seminaries, in a manner that would expose their identity, are doing so in blogs. My sense is that this freedom of expression is going to have strong repercussions in weakening the hold of fundamentalist spiritual and communal leaders over their flocks. Whereas in the past a doubter who was afraid of exposure would have to clandestinely acquire and read a forbidden book and hide it under his bed, and who would be wary of sharing his doubts with others, can today have easy access to a library of forbidden books, articles, and thoughts from a computer anywhere, and be part of a thriving community of doubters. Some Jewish fundamentalists have for this reason placed a ban on computers, or at least on connectivity to the Internet. (180)


I once heard an Orthodox rabbi discussing the attitude of the halakha (Jewish religious law) to the apikores (heretic). He was arguing that it is proper for the Orthodox to show respect and love for those who left Orthodoxy or who are not Orthodox, even though, from the perspective of many in the Jewish tradition, the views of the non-Orthodox person are false and irrational. The halakha, at least in its twentieth- and twenty-first-century Orthodox formulations, extends a hand of love and tolerance to all Jews, even those whose faulty reason or inadequate knowledge of tradition has led them astray. This triggered in me the following thought experiment about who is rational and who is not, the Orthodox believer, or the non-Orthodox non-believer.

Imagine a group of scientists, academicians, philosophers, lawyers, and others whose professional and occupational worldview are based upon a respect for and commitment to scientific, rational, and empirical thinking. As Americans, they also cherish the values of democracy, equality, and justice. They organize a club, open to individuals of similar values.

The club receives an application for membership from an individual, and they interview him in order to ascertain whether he shares their worldview. He is asked to summarize his worldview. He tells them that essential to his worldview are the following beliefs and tenets.

God appeared on a mountain and invited a man to ascend the mountain. On this mountain God gave the man a book known as the Torah and taught it to him for forty days, during which period the man fasted.

The book that God gave the man includes, among other teachings, the following ideas:

• It is permissible to buy and sell human beings as slaves.

• Men can divorce women, but women cannot divorce men.

• A male who engages in homosexual behavior (anal sex) should be put to death.

• A person who eats a lobster should be whipped.

• God has established and maintained a special relationship with a tiny nation
that is dearer and more important to God than are the rest of the inhabitants of this planet.

The club assigns a committee of world-renowned specialists in the study of ancient Near Eastern texts to examine the Torah, which the applicant has claimed was given by God to the individual who ascended the mountain, sometime around the thirteenth century BCE. The specialists conclude that the book has all the signs of being a composite document, of human origin, influenced by ancient cultures, composed centuries after the time when the applicant for admission to the club believes it was written and delivered.

The members of the club vote not to admit the applicant because his views are irrational, or at least highly implausible, and because from their point of view, he is an apikores, or heretic, who denies the foundational scientific, rational, and democratic beliefs and values of the members of the club. They decide, however, that as long as the applicant will not do anything harmful to society, and does many good things for society, they will not take any action against him, and will even allow him to attend their meetings as an observer in the hope that he will eventually come around to a more rational and democratic worldview, at which time he can reapply for membership. (186)

Ten kinds of truth (and here you thought it was a simple word):

It may be true, but I choose not to confront that truth for reasons unrelated to the issue of truth.

I am indifferent to the truth.

I have a different vision of the truth.

I believe in different forms of knowledge.

I have no need to resolve this particular contradiction even though I appreciate
that you may have such a need.

I compartmentalize well.

This is true enough for my purposes.

The authorship issue does not materially affect me.

I have rationalizing mechanisms to reconcile the evidence for multiple, human authorship or alleged scientific errors in my sacred Scripture, with my beliefs in their divine origin and inerrancy.

I do not require revealed knowledge to conform to the same standards or methodological integrity or heuristic consistency as knowledge empirically derived or derived from sense data. (193)


I ask, what does it mean for a modern Orthodox person, especially, but not only, a scholar, rabbi, and teacher, to say that modern biblical scholarship is of no interest or only of tangential interest to him or her, given that his core religious commitments are based upon assumptions about the authorship and authority of the Torah? Would a teacher of the history of the American Revolution or of the intellectual and social origins of the constitution of the United States in a high school or college be allowed to ignore the last one hundred and fifty years of historical scholarship on these subjects that are central to the American ethos and values? Is it fair to socialize children, in school or at home, to believe in TMS and all of the commitments that this belief entails, and to ignore the most significant developments in the understanding of the Torah and of Judaism in the last two hundred years while doing so? I think it is somewhat disingenuous for modern Orthodox rabbis and scholars to claim that biblical scholarship is not of particular interest to them. If it isn’t, then that is a problem. If it is, then the problem is their failure to think through its implications and address them appropriately.

One would expect that because their most fundamental, existential commitments, their way of life, their values, their orientation to history, to current events, to child rearing, and to the education of their children, are based upon assumptions and beliefs about the origin and authorship of the Bible, they would want to acquire as much reliable information about it as is possible. If, for example, one of their children—heaven forbid—were struck with a serious, life-threatening illness, would they not expend their greatest intellectual energies and resources on trying to understand the latest that medicine and science know about that illness and its possible cures? I think they would. Or if they were asked to invest their life savings in a business venture, would they not examine all aspects and angles of the venture before committing their resources? Would they not read up on the most current state of knowledge about the industry to which they are being asked to commit? Would not one expect then that they would do no less when the investment that they are continually making, is, it would appear, even more vital to their lives and to the lives of their families than any possible business venture could be? And they cannot argue that the information is beyond their capacity to comprehend, or is too technical for them to master, or too inaccessible, because biblical scholarship is neither of the above for individuals with the level of intelligence and knowledge that they possess. So why does a distinguished, brilliant philosopher, and other bright Orthodox Jews choose to ignore biblical scholarship?

There are several possible explanations.

It is precisely because they have invested so much of their intellectual, emotional, social, and financial energy and resources into their belief system and religious way of life that they are afraid or reluctant to examine its foundations. It is because they sense that the pillars of all they believe and have invested in might be exposed to be pillars of sand. Better to be an intellectual ostrich with respect to their religious beliefs than to face the reality of the demise of all that is dear to them, which they imagine (rightly or wrongly) will be the consequence of honestly studying biblical scholarship.

The problem with this approach—the ostrich—is that the believer is transmitting to his children these same pillars of sand. This isn’t fair to his children. Why burden them from birth until they reach intellectual maturity with a belief system and a lifestyle that may be based upon pillars of sand, and which will condition them with years of guilt if and when, upon maturity, they discover that what they had been taught to believe is true isn’t really so? Why burden them with powerful emotional conditioning about the evil and sinfulness of certain conditions (or failures to act) that aren’t really so? Why must they feel that certain sexual desires or behaviors (e.g. masturbation, or eating pork, or writing on the Sabbath) are wrong, if the basis for these ideas is the false idea of the divinity of the Bible (and the rabbinic interpretations of it)? Just because you were socialized into this belief system and lifestyle doesn’t justify your imposing them on the next generation. (206)

Check this out

Request for Help

I received this email from a concerned sibling. Her brother recently got involved in the yeshiva community, while they come from a less insular background. If anyone has any advice for her (no frum comments, thank you), please indicate so in the comments below.

Good evening,

I have just started to research this subject, as my younger brother 22 has been sucked in by the religious Jews. We were both raised in a modern orthodox home- went to temple on holidays, had the bar and bat mitzvah, and just enjoyed being jewish... nothing too serious. It is now starting to get out of hand. I am trying to find any information to give to my parents that can help...

If you can offer any advice I would be very appreciative...

-C

Why Be Jewish?

Fascinating post. Check it out.

Also, check out this interesting link sent to me by a fan. Thanks C.

Indoctrination is Ugly

Dedicated to: Garnel.



This is from the maker of this video.

Frum Satire had it first.

A yeshivish view of rationality

Check it out.

Quote from a frum commenter

There is no difference between suicide bombers and...Jewish women in Jerusalem who are forced to wear thick, ugly, dark clothes in the 100 degrees summer heat.

Taken from here.

More from Pat Condell

This guy rocks.

Great article on the Obama speech

Link.

New Blog

I decided to start a new blog. It will be mostly for OTDers, and OTD wannabees. No, not for frum people. Sorry.

Check it out.

Excellent Post

Link.

Morality

Throughout my short career of debating religion, probably the strongest "argument" I've come across is the "argument for morality." The argument goes, "without God, there would be no source for objective morality. Therefore, God must exist!"

I think this argument is ridiculous on many levels. First of all, do you really have such low regard for humanity that you think we're incapable of treating each other with respect without gods? Second of all, can you prove that without religion, there is more crime? I doubt it. Third of all, isn't this a despicable appeal to fear (and consequences, and a red herring), that religion has to be true, because otherwise I might get killed?

Again, while I think it's a pathetic argument, a lot of attention must be paid to it, because many people are hung up on this concept. Is there any truth to this claim? Or is it merely a trick to help the rabbis keep the masses mind-enslaved for the rest of their lives?

It's a brilliant way to sidestep the question. Instead of investigating whether truth claims ABC are correct (in this case, God), let's make a different claim that without this belief, we're all a bunch of filthy Nazi murderers. Still want to question God?? It's a cheap, not to mention disgusting, way of avoiding the question, and don't let the rabbis get away with it.

What's more, one doesn't have to look very far back in history for examples of atrocities carried out in the name of God. It's ironic that what is arguably religion's greatest weakness is often seen as its greatest strength.

However, I think it's unfair to religion to judge it by the actions of some of its adherents, for better or worse. I'm all for objectively looking at the facts, and deciding whether or not a Higher Power exists. The fact that some on the other side of the fence feel the need to instantly attack my character, instead of engaging in reasoned, rational debate tells me all I need to know.

Just when you thought the frummies were getting normal...

Check this out.

And for a great fight between Orthodox and Conservatives, see here.

Brilliant Video