tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post115280662454841643..comments2024-03-18T09:44:19.269-04:00Comments on Divrei Chaim: the limits of rational inquiry as a basis for faithChaim B.http://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comBlogger107125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-4290467312226625272009-04-06T14:12:00.000-04:002009-04-06T14:12:00.000-04:00some thoughts:first, why is GH so angry in his com...some thoughts:<BR/><BR/>first, why is GH so angry in his comments? I agree with him, but he always has to call people "nuts" or "insane." he uses really heated words. argue with a little less of a slashing style, we hear you better.<BR/><BR/>Second, I really struggle with this stuff too. I am one of those types that can see both sides of the "is Judaism real?" debate.<BR/><BR/>I just wanted to add something that was not mentioned:<BR/><BR/>We believe there is a G-d --- and somehow one G-d is a better way to go than many gods. there are several ways to defend the one god idea, but i will just state that with several gods there is a kind of chaos and problems with "my g-d is stronger than yours." I mean, if we are all simply "people" that way of thinking just kind of goes away as immature and not compelling.<BR/><BR/>Also, I have read that the theology of Christianity is based on "mercy," the theology of Islam is based on "justice," and the theology of Judaism is based on both.<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that, of course all three of these monotheistic faiths have some of both, but leaving that aside, I think we can conclude that ALL of them have some merit. If there is a G-d kind of leaving the world to us, but also intervening in subtle ways -- it IS interesting that there is such a balance to these three. A kind of symmetry.<BR/><BR/>Now, why stay Jewish and not join one of the other two?<BR/><BR/>I think that if you feel the "call" of the Koran or Islamic style, you can probably go that way. Same thing with Christianity.<BR/><BR/>I think the thing about Judaism is that you can be a right winger (an "Islamic" style Jew) or a left winger (a "Christian" style Jew).<BR/><BR/>What I am saying in answer to GH is that maybe all three have truth to them. maybe God set it up this way. maybe it enhances free will, or one could say that Judaism is in some ways at the focal point of the two. This works poetically as well since the Jews are the smallest (and in some ways the most impactful) of the three.Tuvianoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1152904868372845482006-07-14T15:21:00.000-04:002006-07-14T15:21:00.000-04:00It's not related to Kabbalah. He just doesn't lik...It's not related to Kabbalah. He just doesn't like non-rounded numbers. For examle, when buying gas, he wants the final amount to be an even $20 or $15 -- not $14.98 or $20.01. It's a pity some people commented after my first comment, for that ruined the perfect 100.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1152900054496463912006-07-14T14:00:00.000-04:002006-07-14T14:00:00.000-04:00Ariella:What's the deal with Chaim and numbers of ...Ariella:<BR/><BR/>What's the deal with Chaim and numbers of posts? Is that a kabbalistic thing?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1152895461736018512006-07-14T12:44:00.000-04:002006-07-14T12:44:00.000-04:00That's the argument of Sefer Kuzari. I'm afraid w...That's the argument of Sefer Kuzari. I'm afraid we'll have to generate another 47 comments before Chaim has a number he can feel comfortable with. ;-) Maybe we'll start a debate on facts vs. truth or the possibility of testimony that is not in fact factual not being cause for perjury.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1152894485997338972006-07-14T12:28:00.000-04:002006-07-14T12:28:00.000-04:00GH: Hi, I was the one who wrote the previous mass...GH: Hi, I was the one who wrote the previous massive anonymous post. Another question, while were at it: Why are the Jews the only religion out of the 15000 or so in recorded history to claim we began with a national prophecy (as opposed to one person having a prophecy and telling others)? Maybe because its impossible to make up.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1152891366428572492006-07-14T11:36:00.000-04:002006-07-14T11:36:00.000-04:00I was Anon 10:40 AM, in case it wasn't obvious.I was Anon 10:40 AM, in case it wasn't obvious.Mississippi Fred MacDowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02734864605700159687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1152890842570350632006-07-14T11:27:00.000-04:002006-07-14T11:27:00.000-04:00>Question: why would something that is not factual...>Question: why would something that is not factually true be "legally admissable" in a question of this sort? <BR/><BR/>I didn't say it should be. I'm not sure if I think it should. I was replying to the contention that edut makes facts. It doesn't. It makes courts figure out how to act.Mississippi Fred MacDowellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02734864605700159687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1152890584531806652006-07-14T11:23:00.000-04:002006-07-14T11:23:00.000-04:00The real reaon I'm commenting is b/c I know you ha...The real reaon I'm commenting is b/c I know you hate numbers like 99, so this will round the comments up to an even 100, but I can't help wondering what the penultimate anonymous comment would accept as "factual or true" Actually, you bring up a semantic question: is there a difference between "factual" and "true"? I think you take them to be one and the same and distinguished from simply "legally admissable" or "true for practical purposes". Question: why would something that is not factually true be "legally admissable" in a question of this sort? While we may acknowledge that halachic fact is not the same as common fact (as in the status of something that is in the category of rov), that is not the same type of categorization.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1152888162139914852006-07-14T10:42:00.000-04:002006-07-14T10:42:00.000-04:00>(e.g. same authoritative sources, Ovadia Yosef qu...>(e.g. same authoritative sources, Ovadia Yosef quotes recent Ashkenazik poseks often etc.)<BR/><BR/>That's a bad example. ROY lives in Israel side by side with Jews from 100 countries. But other than that, you made a good point: we Jews preserved ourselves with a national identity living all over the world for 2000 years, even maintaining essentially common literatures, customs, laws and beliefs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1152888039251960352006-07-14T10:40:00.000-04:002006-07-14T10:40:00.000-04:00>But before the advent of technology, the world re...>But before the advent of technology, the world relied on testimony. Therefore, for Torah which was given before technology, we must rely on the testimony transmitted to us.<BR/><BR/>Fine, but that doesn't make it factual or true. It makes it legally admissible, true for practical purposes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1152887227235848042006-07-14T10:27:00.000-04:002006-07-14T10:27:00.000-04:00GH: Just curious. 1) How do you account for the f...GH: Just curious. 1) How do you account for the fact that the Torah says we will be an eternal nation and the fact that we've survived for the past couple thousand years under conditions that, as far as I know, no other group of people has survived under. 2) Also, the various groups of Jews that have been separated for hundreds and hundreds of years still have a common culture and common beliefs (e.g. same authoritative sources, Ovadia Yosef quotes recent Ashkenazik poseks often etc.). In comparison, the various Gypsy groups who have been exiled and seperated from each other for about half the duration of the Jewish exile don't even consider one another to be Gypsy. How do you account for these facts? How do you account for the fact that the Torah says we would eventually return to Israel? Would have predicted that the Babylonians, Romans, Greeks, etc. would all disappear but that the Jews would remain? 3) Also, if Sinai actually didn't happen, then that would be the only case, as far as I know, of a nation claiming it had a national experience (e.g. war, famine) that never happened (some of this was taken from R'Gottlieb's website). Maybe you can resond on your website so the discussion here can continue to be primarily between you and DC. Or if you've already addressed all of these issues on your website you can just post the links. ThanksAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1152885191414757722006-07-14T09:53:00.000-04:002006-07-14T09:53:00.000-04:00>>>My impression was that Chaim B was advocating G...>>>My impression was that Chaim B was advocating <BR/><BR/>Good Morning. Chaim B advocates nothing. Chaim B is quoting the spectrum from the Rav (Litvak intellectual) to the Noam Elimelech and Piecezna (chassidic mystic) to the effect that reason alone can NEVER lead you to faith. GH - if you look back at my post, I don't know why you keep fighting when I AGREE with your basic premis. Judaism cannot rationally be demonstrated. Where we differ is that you take that to be its death knoll, I take that to be a function of the limits of rationality and nothing else.Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1152884417857479012006-07-14T09:40:00.000-04:002006-07-14T09:40:00.000-04:00> Not true. When there is NO evidence that John ki...> Not true. When there is NO evidence that John killed Mike, but we have two reliable witnesses whose testimony cannot be refuted, we fully prosecute John with the applicable punishment set by the law.<BR/><BR/>When I say 'evidence' I mean it in the broader sense, witnesses certainly count as evidence too (assuming they are reliable etc). My impression was that Chaim B was advocating an approach where we go beynd such evidence and instead listen to our souls (or something similar).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1152883106586062442006-07-14T09:18:00.000-04:002006-07-14T09:18:00.000-04:00We can dismiss the Xian experience that Jesus was ...We can dismiss the Xian experience that Jesus was the Messiah because the neviim predicted the Messiah would do certain things and Jesus didn't fulfill the conditions. The same applies to the faith in the Lubavitcher Rebbe.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1152855209346555352006-07-14T01:33:00.000-04:002006-07-14T01:33:00.000-04:00>Without evidence you got NOTHINGNot true. When th...>Without evidence you got NOTHING<BR/><BR/>Not true. When there is NO evidence that John killed Mike, but we have two reliable witnesses whose testimony cannot be refuted, we fully prosecute John with the applicable punishment set by the law. <BR/><BR/>It isn't rational. There is no evidence. Simply the words of two people. But that's the way society works. If you'll walk around screaming "but there's no evidence...." you remain the fool.<BR/><BR/>We have a testimony of revelation at Sinai constantly transmitted from generation to generation. Remember, up to 60 - 150 years ago, there was no DNA, Fingerprint data banks, Cameras and videos. The world relied on testimony. We can't allow our minds to be so biased by current technology which so downplays testimony. As in - when the lab reports that we established that the DNA of the accused was found on the dead person, we don't care what henry and robert (witnesses) have to say.<BR/><BR/>But before the advent of technology, the world relied on testimony. Therefore, for Torah which was given before technology, we must rely on the testimony transmitted to us. <BR/><BR/>Lakewood YidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1152847283887269172006-07-13T23:21:00.000-04:002006-07-13T23:21:00.000-04:00> you can not produce a single fact that shows, co...> you can not produce a single fact that shows, conclusively, that anything described in the Bible did not occur in a manner which is consistent with the Biblical text.<BR/><BR/>Of course you can't. It could always be a miracle. But you also cannot prove conclusively that the Book of Mormon is false, or the New testament. Remember the trick I showed you before? You should have used it here. it would have shown you how meaningless your statement was.<BR/><BR/>"you can not produce a single fact that shows, conclusively, that anything described in the New Testament did not occur in a manner which is consistent with the New Testament text."<BR/><BR/>"you can not produce a single fact that shows, conclusively, that anything described in the Koran did not occur in a manner which is consistent with the Koranic text."<BR/><BR/>"you can not produce a single fact that shows, conclusively, that anything described in the Book of Mormon did not occur in a manner which is consistent with the Mormonic text."<BR/><BR/>The same statement works for everything, and hence works for nothing.<BR/><BR/>> I will take the Million Man (and Woman) Mesorah over that any day of the week.<BR/><BR/>Sure, but which million man mesorah? Judaism? Or Mormonism? Or how about the billion man mesorah? There are quite a few of those to chose from. Or how about a thousand man mesorah? Or a one man mesorah? Without any evidence, your preferences and beliefs are simply your own personal choice and your statements affirming how much you believe in them are as meaningless as when my Catholic colleague tells me how much he believes in Jesus. Without evidence you got NOTHING.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1152846605978452742006-07-13T23:10:00.000-04:002006-07-13T23:10:00.000-04:00bill selliger talks about killing amaleik.todays j...bill selliger talks about killing amaleik.<BR/>todays jihadist talking about killing amaleik (the west, jews etc.).<BR/>Are we lucky that we that the commandment to kill amaleik was interpeted away by chazal? would bill become a suicide bomber if we still had that commandment?topshadchanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07153946018043229765noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1152846333055459942006-07-13T23:05:00.000-04:002006-07-13T23:05:00.000-04:00The only evidence you can produce against the trut...The only evidence you can produce against the truth of Judaism is the result of historical researches which by their very methodology must be tentative and can not produce all the pertinent facts, and were often conducted by individuals who had an ideological agenda that demanded disproof of Judaism and/or religion in general; you can not produce a single fact that shows, conclusively, that anything described in the Bible did not occur in a manner which is consistent with the Biblical text. <BR/><BR/>I will take the Million Man (and Woman) Mesorah over that any day of the week.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1152845787087668752006-07-13T22:56:00.000-04:002006-07-13T22:56:00.000-04:00> So when you met or meet your wife do you say the...> So when you met or meet your wife do you say the experience of love is not real because most people are simply deluding themselves when they get married, or do you accept the possibility that you have discovered true love at that moment?<BR/><BR/>The former actually. Anyone convinced 100% that they have found their one true love with no possibility of divorce ever is clearly deluding themselves. Much like anyone who is convinced that their religion must be the one true religion with no possibility of it being false. I thought that would be fairly self evident. Then again, maybe what you are referring to is the phenomenon that people 'in love' tend to get caried away and don't think clearly? Sure, same as with people 'in love' with religion. It feels great to be in love, but it doens't prove anything at all about anything at all, other than the fact that you are in love. If you want to make the argument that all Judaism demands is that you love Judaism, then fine. I can agree. But I think (based on the ikkarim) that Judaism demands you actually believe it to be true 100%, and that cannot be, without some good evidence.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1152845515561621522006-07-13T22:51:00.000-04:002006-07-13T22:51:00.000-04:00> A reasonable person will admit that some things ...> A reasonable person will admit that some things must be taken on faith<BR/><BR/>Sure, but which things? Jesus? Allah? Hashem? Fairies? The Loch Ness Monster? Aliens? The Abominable Snowman? Torah? The Golem? The Dybuk? The Talking Fish from New Square? ESP? Magic? Vodoo? All of them? None of them? One of them? Which one? How do I chose? Seriously, once you leave behind reason all bets are off. Anything goes, and a quick check of the religion section at Barnes & Noble proves that quite conclusively.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1152844665086588452006-07-13T22:37:00.000-04:002006-07-13T22:37:00.000-04:00R. Chaim said:TMS is a seperate subject, one which...R. Chaim said:<BR/>TMS is a seperate subject, one which I do not want to comment on now other than to ask that you not presume what I hold.<BR/>---<BR/>1)Much of GH's questions seem to relate to TMS; which is why I brough it up. (Actually, in fact, I think GH brought up himself.)<BR/>2) I didn't think it was much of a presumption to say you mean by TMS what standard Orthodoxy means by TMS. And I think it proper to admit that, according to standard Orthodoxy, my view of TMS is kefirah. But I am not asking GH or anyone else to follow me there: I'm only try to argue that a reasonable person should not expect the degree of 'evidence', etc. GH seems to be demanding. A reasonable person will admit that some things must be taken on faith; and given all other considerations, taking things the Jewish way is a very good way to take them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1152844329583983032006-07-13T22:32:00.000-04:002006-07-13T22:32:00.000-04:00The goal of Judaism is not to be able to prove tha...The goal of Judaism is not to be able to prove that it is correct to a billion other people. The goal is to find personal meaning in observance and belief. I don't know why you think being able to prove what you believe is correct is a precondition to accepting its validity. These days the majority of marriages end in failure with both parties realizing they were not meant for each other. So when you met or meet your wife do you say the experience of love is not real because most people are simply deluding themselves when they get married, or do you accept the possibility that you have discovered true love at that moment? <BR/><BR/>I have to duck out - too tired to continue. Thank you again and have a good night.Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1152843984426110192006-07-13T22:26:00.000-04:002006-07-13T22:26:00.000-04:00> GH--I have a reason to believe in the Torah and ...> GH--I have a reason to believe in the Torah and not other "revelations". But it was a mystical, very personal experience, and it would sound like I'm claiming some spiritual authority I do not really have, if I gave details. I will only say that I have seen something which is described in Nach, and what I saw fit very precisely with the description give in Nach, and the differences are the result in not being able to see all the details, and that difference is no doubt a reflection of the fact that I am not on the spiritual level of the person who described it in Nach. He was a prophet, and was able to see much better. I was just an autistic teenager going through a major emotional crisis. As best as I can tell, thirty years later, G-d sent me that experience to get me through the difficulties I was facing, then and later: a very special chizuk.<BR/><BR/>While I hate to belittle your very real life experiences, I'm sure you will appreciate that the experience of an "autistic teenager going through a major emotional crisis" is hardly proof of anything.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1152843885397633842006-07-13T22:24:00.000-04:002006-07-13T22:24:00.000-04:00> Two art experts disagree as to the value of a pa...> Two art experts disagree as to the value of a painting. Neither can justify their analysis completely in an objective scientific way because the nature of the subject matter depends on aethetic assessment. Yet, it would be foolish to say that since art appreciation depends on a subjetive appreciation of the subject it is worthless and since there are differing opinions, none of them contain any truth.<BR/><BR/>An excellent example which only proves my point. Art is about subjective appreciation, hence they can both be correct. If your argument is simply that you appreciate the beauty of Judaism, then I agree with you 100%. I do to! But you seemed to be arguing that your appreciation of judaism somehow shows that it's 'true', in some real sense. This of course is nonsense. It might be beautiful, it might be fabulous, it might be excellent (to you), but nothing about your feelings for it can make it 'the one true religion', just like nothing about the art skeptic's feelings for a painting make it the 'one true painting'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20173285.post-1152843728682190092006-07-13T22:22:00.000-04:002006-07-13T22:22:00.000-04:00> GH, you keep missing the point. One who experien...> GH, you keep missing the point. One who experiences the word of G-d in Torah needs no justification other than that. And it is certainly true that a Mormom might find religious experience elsewhere, but how does that delegitimize my own experience of the truth?<BR/><BR/>This is easy to answer. You claim that your 'experience' validates the tuth. Howeve you admit that a Mormon has a similar experience which validates his truth. Likewise a Christian and a Moslem. In fact, the 4 billion religious people in the world each have an experience that validates their religious truth. You hold that 99.999% of these people are all wrong. Therefore the ONLY logical conclusion is that experience is a very very poor indicator of truth, when it comes to religion. Could your religion be the one true religion? Sure it can. But using your 'experience' as proof for that is silly, since 4 billion people have the same experience and we know they're all wrong.<BR/><BR/>If a doctor prescribed a drug for you, but told you that in 99.999% of the drug trials it had lethal consequences, would you still take the drug? No of course not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com