1. Not a fair question. You'll examine the evidence for yourself and decide if it's reasonable. (We don't ask how would I know that my life is really not a dream and I'm really a Chinese monk. We don't ask how would I know if GW really didn't exist and it was just a conspiracy theory for whatever reason. We live strongly by reasonability. Don't expect more than that - but don't expect anything less than that either. If when we're done you still think it's unreasonable, we'll talk.)
2. Not if you consider the evidence I will (bl'n) provide. Which should also change a lot about that you think about the world, and can make you reconsider your very notion of what is reasonable, if you are up to the task...
What if GW lived over 3000 years ago and the only source for his existence is a single book which claims that he miraculously split the Delaware River so his troops could cross?
GW is a historical figure by no means of books, but by a full nation who he led.
Same is with the Jewish people who carried these historical facts with them. Many things mentioned in the Torah are mentioned in Ancient history books such as Josephus and even Documents in Egypt talking about the plagues.
I know you won't go for this either, but to say all it is one book is intellectually dishonest.
Make it simpler: what if GW was proof that God exists?
I wasn't bringing that except to show that we use reasonability even when the material is unfalsifiable, not that Matan Torah is the same as GW. I think we're on the same page here as far as what can be a proof and what can't.
The most basic level of a believing Jew has to believe that the donkey opened his mouth and spoke? I assume that you are coming l'afukei the Rambam and Ralbag, but I don't get what you're doing with them.
(Not to cover up my mistake, but truth is that at this point in the discussion, if I would even mention the Rambam's opinion, the atheists would say its silly apologetics so I'm happy I put it in...)
But I think it's important to be very careful about formulating what a Jew *must* believe. Drawing acceptable circles that are narrower than necessary can have dangerous consequences.
Lol - tx for pointing that out, acc. to the Rambam it was a מראה נבואה. But the Rambam won't save anyone on the many others! We'll get to this part later on iyH
I read and thought what you are saying is (among other things) an example of an apples and oranges fallacy. There are many things we all agree we know; there are other things we agree we can't really know.
We all agree we know that Einstein lived due to the massive amount of data from so many sources - his friends, students, fellow teachers, people who met him, articles, birth certificate, employment records, his family and children, photos, interviews. We accept that he is (like most relatively well known) figures, a real historical person.
Did the historic Moses live who went up Har Sinai, and had a supernatural experience? We have one account. And, we have no valid evidence of supernatural experiences, to boot.
So, the issue here is really that a logical fallacy tells us that the person pushing it is using weak logic that sounds persuasive, but is not. It's not all the same, and equally reasonable.
That's I think where proofs get troubling -- any time logical fallacies are used, it is unsound logic that can seem strong. It's persuasion using techniques that are known to trick people who think logic is being used on them.
I wrote in the post, "Why I am doing this is only for me to know, but here I am."
But I guess you're right, I probably should've directly addressed the Rambam (amongst other sources), but my position and answer is still the same. You can email me if you'd like.
"As such, I welcome you, dear atheist, into this discussion on rationality." Be careful of what you wish for. BTW - ACJA went to Orthodox Yeshiva from kindergarten thru some Beis Medrish. What has he wrote that makes you think he does not know about Orthodox Judaism ?
Not much of a question, as you'll see for yourself as we go along. I did address this tho (in the pre-post (small black letters) part, end of number 2)
"All this, besides for the obvious moral dilemmas like murdering (your clever term) the seven nations, and innocent (also your term) Amalekite women and babies." Dont forget about saving the virgins. and executing adulterers (but its Ok if the husband sleeps around with unmarried girls but G-d forbid his wife sleeps around with unmarried, or else.
"Judaism is simply ‘irrational’ - there is absolutely no way out of that." If you say so. But the real issues is if the claims of Orthodox Judaism can be substantially be supported. If they can not be, one may choose to believe them, but do not expect skeptics to accept them.
Incorrect. If it reasonable to believe the story, that goes for anyone and everyone. Same way we can 'mandate' (at least socially) that everyone agree that the holocaust happened or that man went to the moon or that GW existed. I will be arguing such kinds of reasonability.
If I can request, I'd rather have discussion with you and your words, not with links or even quotes. (Besides that ACJA made his material easily repeatable and summarize-able, it's also not always clear what your referring to)
We just had פרשת חוקת. A reminder that not everything is understandable.
Style notes - I found it hard to read the small black, but maybe it's just me. Hilarious illustration though. It could use a clearer division with topic headings and sub headings. It's difficult to stop in the middle and come back to where you're up to.
100%, we will not explain everything, or even come close to it. But we will try to open up a door towards the deeper truth of Judaism - which is only necessary for these intellectual types. They have questions and haven't received answers. Perhaps they should've read the Rambam (properly) or the Gra, or even Plato. But instead they turned to Hume and Kant and Dawkins and ACJA and whatever for answers:(
Yah, sorry about the small black, I'm probably going to remove it eventually and put it as a separate post to make it easier (with headings as you mention) but I'm way too busy right now and I wanted to get the main thing out already...
Nice to see a believer who *gets it* for a change. I'm looking forward to following this blog as it progresses.
Thanks! I hope I can continue getting the points across (as I worried in my first post: https://rationalistjudaism2.substack.com/p/in-defence-of-the-rambam#:~:text=However%2C%20an%20inherent,their%20tremendous%20wisdom.)
Two questions I hope to see answered in your future posts.
1. If you were wrong, how would you know? (Does Judaism predict anything? What's the difference between your beliefs and Sagan's dragon?)
2. Isn't Judaism being false the more parsimonious explanation, all things considered?
1. Not a fair question. You'll examine the evidence for yourself and decide if it's reasonable. (We don't ask how would I know that my life is really not a dream and I'm really a Chinese monk. We don't ask how would I know if GW really didn't exist and it was just a conspiracy theory for whatever reason. We live strongly by reasonability. Don't expect more than that - but don't expect anything less than that either. If when we're done you still think it's unreasonable, we'll talk.)
2. Not if you consider the evidence I will (bl'n) provide. Which should also change a lot about that you think about the world, and can make you reconsider your very notion of what is reasonable, if you are up to the task...
What if GW lived over 3000 years ago and the only source for his existence is a single book which claims that he miraculously split the Delaware River so his troops could cross?
GW is a historical figure by no means of books, but by a full nation who he led.
Same is with the Jewish people who carried these historical facts with them. Many things mentioned in the Torah are mentioned in Ancient history books such as Josephus and even Documents in Egypt talking about the plagues.
I know you won't go for this either, but to say all it is one book is intellectually dishonest.
Make it simpler: what if GW was proof that God exists?
I wasn't bringing that except to show that we use reasonability even when the material is unfalsifiable, not that Matan Torah is the same as GW. I think we're on the same page here as far as what can be a proof and what can't.
" (Does Judaism predict anything? What's the difference between your beliefs and Sagan's dragon?)"
predictions:
https://ohr.edu/2052
Response to critique:
https://ohr.edu/explore_judaism/living_up_to_the_truth/the_controversy/1011
and see https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/08/proof-of-god-via-jewish-survival-jewish_12.html
one thru four. https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2015/01/proof-of-god-from-prophecy-part-1.html
Not sure what you're referring me to. Doesn't seem to be discussing Gottlieb at all.
At least someone liked your post....
Must've forgotten where to give the credit.
https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/judaism-is-simply-irrational-there-is-absolutely-no-way-out-of-that
The most basic level of a believing Jew has to believe that the donkey opened his mouth and spoke? I assume that you are coming l'afukei the Rambam and Ralbag, but I don't get what you're doing with them.
(Not to cover up my mistake, but truth is that at this point in the discussion, if I would even mention the Rambam's opinion, the atheists would say its silly apologetics so I'm happy I put it in...)
But I think it's important to be very careful about formulating what a Jew *must* believe. Drawing acceptable circles that are narrower than necessary can have dangerous consequences.
100% agreed! Thanks again for catching that
Lol - tx for pointing that out, acc. to the Rambam it was a מראה נבואה. But the Rambam won't save anyone on the many others! We'll get to this part later on iyH
I read and thought what you are saying is (among other things) an example of an apples and oranges fallacy. There are many things we all agree we know; there are other things we agree we can't really know.
We all agree we know that Einstein lived due to the massive amount of data from so many sources - his friends, students, fellow teachers, people who met him, articles, birth certificate, employment records, his family and children, photos, interviews. We accept that he is (like most relatively well known) figures, a real historical person.
Did the historic Moses live who went up Har Sinai, and had a supernatural experience? We have one account. And, we have no valid evidence of supernatural experiences, to boot.
So, the issue here is really that a logical fallacy tells us that the person pushing it is using weak logic that sounds persuasive, but is not. It's not all the same, and equally reasonable.
That's I think where proofs get troubling -- any time logical fallacies are used, it is unsound logic that can seem strong. It's persuasion using techniques that are known to trick people who think logic is being used on them.
Look forward to more.
What to you do with the gemara Sanhedrin 38b and Rambam A"Z 2:5?
I wrote in the post, "Why I am doing this is only for me to know, but here I am."
But I guess you're right, I probably should've directly addressed the Rambam (amongst other sources), but my position and answer is still the same. You can email me if you'd like.
"As such, I welcome you, dear atheist, into this discussion on rationality." Be careful of what you wish for. BTW - ACJA went to Orthodox Yeshiva from kindergarten thru some Beis Medrish. What has he wrote that makes you think he does not know about Orthodox Judaism ?
Not much of a question, as you'll see for yourself as we go along. I did address this tho (in the pre-post (small black letters) part, end of number 2)
"All this, besides for the obvious moral dilemmas like murdering (your clever term) the seven nations, and innocent (also your term) Amalekite women and babies." Dont forget about saving the virgins. and executing adulterers (but its Ok if the husband sleeps around with unmarried girls but G-d forbid his wife sleeps around with unmarried, or else.
Sure, we could list hundreds of others, I didn't feel the need to write all of them now; we'll get to it when we are ready
"Judaism is simply ‘irrational’ - there is absolutely no way out of that." If you say so. But the real issues is if the claims of Orthodox Judaism can be substantially be supported. If they can not be, one may choose to believe them, but do not expect skeptics to accept them.
Incorrect. If it reasonable to believe the story, that goes for anyone and everyone. Same way we can 'mandate' (at least socially) that everyone agree that the holocaust happened or that man went to the moon or that GW existed. I will be arguing such kinds of reasonability.
"Incidentally, these things were all believed by a non-scientific people who were so clearly primitive and silly - how do I know that? " Because see first few paragraphs where he cites Tenach, Ramban, Rambam thats how we know. https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2013/07/kuzari-principle-or-argument-part-i_24.html
If I can request, I'd rather have discussion with you and your words, not with links or even quotes. (Besides that ACJA made his material easily repeatable and summarize-able, it's also not always clear what your referring to)
Very interesting.
We just had פרשת חוקת. A reminder that not everything is understandable.
Style notes - I found it hard to read the small black, but maybe it's just me. Hilarious illustration though. It could use a clearer division with topic headings and sub headings. It's difficult to stop in the middle and come back to where you're up to.
I like the attitude. חזק ואמץ
100%, we will not explain everything, or even come close to it. But we will try to open up a door towards the deeper truth of Judaism - which is only necessary for these intellectual types. They have questions and haven't received answers. Perhaps they should've read the Rambam (properly) or the Gra, or even Plato. But instead they turned to Hume and Kant and Dawkins and ACJA and whatever for answers:(
Yah, sorry about the small black, I'm probably going to remove it eventually and put it as a separate post to make it easier (with headings as you mention) but I'm way too busy right now and I wanted to get the main thing out already...
Thanks!
ACJA on some of Rambam. see https://altercockerjewishatheist.blogspot.com/2014/03/explanations-of-pagan-customs-in_18.html
"And this is discussing Chazal’s numerous claims."
Pretty sure you meant without.
Fixed, thanks.