tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post3342085431555065147..comments2024-01-30T12:26:03.019-05:00Comments on The Blog of Garnel Ironheart: The Limits of RationalismMighty Garnel Ironhearthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09571194550300367249noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-70172919070856930992009-11-12T16:52:47.107-05:002009-11-12T16:52:47.107-05:00"The Torah's account of the entire period..."The Torah's account of the entire period in the desert, as amplified by Chazal, shows that God is quite fastidious. The ananei hakovad leared the way forward and swept up behind our ancestors, leaving no trace of their passing."<br /><br />That's cute. There's no proof, because God came by and removed all the proof. Honestly, Garnel, that's not a problem with my requirements, that's (yet) a(nother) problem with your beliefs. I could tell you that I'm God, and that the reason that you and most other people don't recognize that obvious fact is that I've chosen to wipe it from your minds in order to give you free choice.<br /><br />And, E-Man, you're being absurd. As to Josephus, I'm inclined to believe he existed, because nothing that I've read attributed to him strikes me as all that peculiar. There is an ancient written text attributed to him which seems plausible enough. That said, am I prepared to swear that there was a Josephus? No. Am I prepared to state with certainty that everything I find written by Josephus (or whoever wrote that) is accurate? No. Indeed, from what I've read, scholars of Josephus do believe that some later materials were interpolated into his original text. Now, why is it so hard for you to acknowledge that this is possible with the Torah?Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15752938979399977997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-814743646789223782009-11-12T07:02:18.555-05:002009-11-12T07:02:18.555-05:00Garnel it's nice to know you think that a talk...Garnel it's nice to know you think that a talking donkey is perfectly rational. -_-SJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10704885840004960450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-37119331536219937552009-11-11T11:12:12.479-05:002009-11-11T11:12:12.479-05:00EMa: See my recent post "Nach" and Neche...EMa: See my recent post "Nach" and Nechemia 8. The Kuzari proof is weak because there were periods in Jewish history where only one or two people "remembered" "facts" like ma'amad har sinai.<br /><br />Garnel: You've said before the Torah is not "intended" as a science or history book, now you're saying it is. Which is it?OTDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12284266882043971891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-18475744540076120552009-11-11T09:24:06.707-05:002009-11-11T09:24:06.707-05:00Garnel, my point has nothing to do with historicit...Garnel, my point has nothing to do with historicity. It has to do with Judaism being rational or not. The idea here is that if the bible is true then it is rational to believe in a G-D that spoke to u. The idea about george washington was that just like we know he existed and it is rational to believe that he existed, so too the Jew who believes the bible to be true has a rational belief in G-D. <br />However, u are arguing whether it is rational to believe the bible. I do not think this is a rational vs irrational argument it is one about how verifiable is the book. <br />I think it is rational to believe in the authenticity of the bible for several reasons.<br /><br />I think any religion that says only one person saw G-D contains an irrational belief in G-D because if only one person saw G-D how does everyone else know G-D existed? Must be they have an irrational belief in G-D. However, the Jew has a belief in G-D because all the contemporary Jews of the time saw G-D.E-Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327848648278849664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-53499718143217227012009-11-11T09:08:31.629-05:002009-11-11T09:08:31.629-05:00Garnel,
The M.N. in context explains why ma'a...Garnel,<br /><br />The M.N. in context explains why ma'aseh braishis is not publically taught. If all that was required to understand the chapter is a translation of the words, every child could understand it and it would not be sisrei Torah. Do you not think even the Rambam agrees that there is more to ma'aseh braisis than simple translation? <br /><br />As for the rest, you claimed gedolim believe the world is flat and the best you can come up with is what "some people" (who are these people?) say the rebbe believed but never said? I think you should retract your original statement if that's your evidence. I would beg of you and your readers to not buy into unsubstantiated claims about what gedolim hold and use that as a means to discredit their opinions. <br /><br />No one takes everything Chazal say as literally true, be it R' Chaim Kanievsky or anyone else, so you are beating a straw man. <br /><br />I fail to see the connection between a contemporary acharon getting a fact wrong and the statement that Chazal were wrong or the conclusion that vast portions of the Torah are to be read allegorically. Non sequitor.Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-17249382733348926842009-11-11T08:12:45.816-05:002009-11-11T08:12:45.816-05:00E-man, the problem with the argument is that you a...E-man, the problem with the argument is that you and I are using a different frame of reference than David is. For us, the Torah is a legitimate work which means it is as authoritative as an obelisk in the middle of the Egyptian desert for teaching us history.<br />David is approaching from what might be termed a more rationalist approach. He wants corroboration of the event from an outside source.<br />To use your George Washington example: if the only evidence Washington existed were American sources, if there was no mention of him in British, French history or elsewhere, then he would probably be equally suspect as to whether or not Washington was created by the American founding fathers as a convenient figurehead who never really existed.<br />Similarly, it would probably change his mind if there were contemporary non-Israelite accounts of matan Torah in history.<br />There are one big problem with his requirements:<br />The Torah's account of the entire period in the desert, as amplified by Chazal, shows that God is quite fastidious. The ananei hakovad leared the way forward and swept up behind our ancestors, leaving no trace of their passing. Har Sinai is a lonely, forgotten mountain in the middle of nowhere. No one else was around for Matan Torah other than our ancestors (and us ourselves al pi Chazal). Thus there can be no contemporary witnesses outside of the Jewish people.<br />Therefore there is nothing we can say to change David's mind. We cannot satisfy the requirements he has set for changing it.<br /><br />The other problem with having this argument is that our side is quite prepared to bring God into history and have Him play a role while the other side is not. If Paul of Tarsus could successfully start a new religion based on some hippie who got nailed to a cross because of his megalomaniacal amibitions, and if ol' Mo could convince millions of pagan shepherds that God spoke to him, both events boggling the mind, to me that suggests that there was a divine purpose to their success. Rambam himself notes that both Paul and Mo were successful in increasing the spread of monotheism in the world. Would such a thing happen against His will?Garnel Ironhearthttp://garnelironheart.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-29499131223290777362009-11-11T08:03:54.571-05:002009-11-11T08:03:54.571-05:00Chaim B.,
In answer to your questions:
Moreh Ne...Chaim B., <br /><br />In answer to your questions:<br /><br />Moreh Nevuchim 2:29: "First, the account given in Scripture of the Creation is not, as is generally believed, intended to be in all its parts literal... The literal meaning of the words might lead us to conceive corrupt ideas and to form false opinions about God or even entirely to abandon and reject the principles of our faith."<br /><br />Second, the Lubavitcher Rebbe wrote a sefer in which he tries to show that the scientific method is erroneous, that the Earth is the centre of the universe with the sun revolving around it, etc. I'm told in hushed whipsers he also believe the Earth was flat.<br /><br />Check out the statement of Rav Chaim Kanievsky, shlita, in this post as to the number of teeth gentiles have.<br />http://parsha.blogspot.com/2009/06/do-gentiles-have-more-teeth-than-jews.html<br /><br />Further, anyone who insists that everything Chazal said, even if it has nothing to do with halacha and Torah, must be literally understood as true, even if it contradicts reality as we observe it, has to explain how he resolves the contradiction:<br />http://torahandscience.blogspot.com/2006_04_01_archive.htmlGarnel Ironhearthttp://garnelironheart.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-16333321512426974482009-11-10T18:07:16.247-05:002009-11-10T18:07:16.247-05:00"We have contemporaneous first-hand accounts ..."We have contemporaneous first-hand accounts the authenticity of which is not really in any doubt."<br /><br />Does this mean we have letters from people who wrote to George Washington? <br /><br />And my point here is that you are trusting everyone to say George Washington existed because they say they have first hand accounts. Just like the Jews trusted the former generations to say they spoke to G-D on mount Sinai. <br /><br />But again, let us forget about George Washington and talk of Josephus. Why are you sure he exists? This is more comparable because it is older yet we know Josephus existed, but how do we know that?E-Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327848648278849664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-61225051889563788172009-11-10T18:04:22.452-05:002009-11-10T18:04:22.452-05:00"So, if Jesus isn't God, how did so many ..."So, if Jesus isn't God, how did so many people get tricked? If Mohammed isn't the Prophet of God, how did so many people get tricked? Sorry, that's not proof."<br /><br />No one knows if Jesus is G-D, they know that he told them he was G-D, or more specifically, his followers said he was G-D. That is a historical fact. That is why I said to believe he is G-D is irrational. However, by Judaism everyone saw G-D, so a belief in G-D is not irrational. What are you not getting here?<br /><br />I am not arguing whether it is true or not. Try to understand this and stop thinking about Aish, is that the only thing you can argue against? If G-D spoke to all the Jews then it is not irrational to believe in G-D. Contrary to this, if G-D only spoke to one man and he told the entire nation he spoke to G-D then it would be irrational for anyone he told to believe in G-D because no one else saw G-D or knows there is a G-D, they are just taking some guys word for it.E-Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327848648278849664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-20200047292571862072009-11-10T17:40:02.201-05:002009-11-10T17:40:02.201-05:00"I am curious as to how you rationally say th..."I am curious as to how you rationally say that the events of the Bible did not happen."<br /><br />The burden's with you; you're the one claiming they happened, and the only evidence you've got for the Bible is... the Bible.<br /><br /><br />"If they were made up, how did so many people (Over 2 billion) get tricked?"<br /><br />So, if Jesus isn't God, how did so many people get tricked? If Mohammed isn't the Prophet of God, how did so many people get tricked? Sorry, that's not proof.<br /><br />"My point was, if the events of the bible are true, or you believe them to be true, then the belief in G-D is not irrational, it is a rational step. However, if the bible is not true, or the belief in the bible is not there, then a belief in G-D is irrational."<br /><br />That's gibberish. If the Bible is true, then it's true. If it's false, then it's false. Seriously, do all your ideas come from having been drunk at an Aish seminar?<br /><br />"Oh an please tell me what you mean by eyewitness accounts. Do you mean documents of people talking to washington that we do not have eyewitnesses that they existed?"<br /><br />We have contemporaneous first-hand accounts the authenticity of which is not really in any doubt.<br /><br />"Well, I guess I could tell you we as Jews have eyewitness accounts, but as opposed to written letters we have the tradition of father son to father and son which was written down sometime after the entrance into Israel."<br /><br />Again, you're missing the point. This "father to son" stuff is all well and good, but there's no proof that it really goes back all that far. Your father didn't tell you that he saw anything. He told you that he heard something from his father, who heard something from his father. And, frankly, my father didn't tell me anything of the sort. That adds up to a folk tale. You keep trying to confuse it with documentation or testimony. It's not the same-- I can't even testify to what my father saw, much less to what he heard that his father heard that his father heard that his father heard (etc.). Ever play whisper-down-the-lane?Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15752938979399977997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-67599038855021251672009-11-10T17:02:20.360-05:002009-11-10T17:02:20.360-05:00Oh an please tell me what you mean by eyewitness a...Oh an please tell me what you mean by eyewitness accounts. Do you mean documents of people talking to washington that we do not have eyewitnesses that they existed? <br /><br />Well, I guess I could tell you we as Jews have eyewitness accounts, but as opposed to written letters we have the tradition of father son to father and son which was written down sometime after the entrance into Israel.E-Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327848648278849664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-7190938779541280032009-11-10T16:58:54.346-05:002009-11-10T16:58:54.346-05:00I am curious as to how you rationally say that the...I am curious as to how you rationally say that the events of the Bible did not happen. When were they made up? If they were made up, how did so many people (Over 2 billion) get tricked? Why would a nation believe this non-sense? There is the oral tradition. However, you are missing my real point, this was just side discussion. <br /><br />My point was, if the events of the bible are true, or you believe them to be true, then the belief in G-D is not irrational, it is a rational step. However, if the bible is not true, or the belief in the bible is not there, then a belief in G-D is irrational.E-Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327848648278849664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-21909805229261448512009-11-10T15:13:08.744-05:002009-11-10T15:13:08.744-05:00"David, the bible says the entire nation saw ..."David, the bible says the entire nation saw G-D. Also, if the luchos exist, which the bible says they did, that would be proof as well."<br /><br />So, the Bible says that those people were eyewitnesses. However, those people did not leave accounts, so that's problematic. Same problem with the luchos. Using the Bible to prove that the Bible is true is absurd. The Koran opens up with the phrase 'This Book is not to be doubted.' By your argument, it must also be true.<br /><br />"Also, what eye witness can attest to George Washingotn (sic) having ever been alive?"<br /><br />Are you serious? There are countless contemporaneous documents, newspaper articles, artifacts, real estate deeds, memoirs, medical records, etc. which attest to Washington's existence. Moreover, we have contemporaenous writings about Washington from both supporters and opponents. We even have his grave and, if we wished, we could dig him up. There is no rational basis for doubt as to his existence.<br /><br />As to the stuff in the Bible, there is nothing at all to prove that anything happened at Sinai. No eyewitness accounts, no contemporary writings, no artifacts. Nothing but the Bible. And, as I mentioned, you can't prove that something is true by saying that the thing itself says that it's true-- that's circular.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15752938979399977997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-72887542221314197242009-11-10T12:54:13.128-05:002009-11-10T12:54:13.128-05:00Also, what eye witness can attest to George Washin...Also, what eye witness can attest to George Washingotn having ever been alive?E-Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327848648278849664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-69023549539250268682009-11-10T12:53:36.991-05:002009-11-10T12:53:36.991-05:00David, the bible says the entire nation saw G-D. A...David, the bible says the entire nation saw G-D. Also, if the luchos exist, which the bible says they did, that would be proof as well.E-Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327848648278849664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-75759652921450827222009-11-10T12:53:31.565-05:002009-11-10T12:53:31.565-05:00David, the bible says the entire nation saw G-D. A...David, the bible says the entire nation saw G-D. Also, if the luchos exist, which the bible says they did, that would be proof as well.E-Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327848648278849664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-52846215327824634622009-11-10T09:22:09.437-05:002009-11-10T09:22:09.437-05:00E-Man:
I think you're confused as to the conce...E-Man:<br />I think you're confused as to the concept of "eye-witnesses." Yes, the people around Mt. Sinai might have been eye-witnesses if anything had happened there. However, there is no witness who can attest to God's having spoken to the entire nation; you are citing a folk-legend and calling it proof. It isn't.<br /><br />If anybody saw anything at Sinai, they left no recorded testimony and there are (unlike the case with Washington) no documents or artifacts at all which can be identified as contemporaneous. Call your next witness.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15752938979399977997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-21353787410121228402009-11-10T09:20:18.996-05:002009-11-10T09:20:18.996-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15752938979399977997noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-73653421779929320362009-11-09T22:56:30.252-05:002009-11-09T22:56:30.252-05:00>>>The Rambam is in the Moreh Nevuchim.
...>>>The Rambam is in the Moreh Nevuchim.<br /><br />What perek are you referring to so we can check if he really says this? Thanks.<br /><br />Can you also identify which gedolim today you think believe the earth is flat or do not rely on the scientific method and how you know this?Chaim B.https://www.blogger.com/profile/02231811394447584320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-18134954692176867382009-11-09T19:14:57.515-05:002009-11-09T19:14:57.515-05:00Garnel, I know that there is more evidence for Geo...Garnel, I know that there is more evidence for George Washington's existence, that is not what I am saying. You would not believe in G-D if someone told you there was a G-D and that was it. The reason we believe in G-D is because we believe that He spoke to the entire nation of Israel. That is the only reason we believe in G-D. Had our religion been based on a single man telling us there is a G-D without actual having every single person in the nation see it, then that would be irrational. However, our belief is that every single person in klal Yisroel heard G-D speak and therefore verify His existence.<br /><br />If you have a tradition that Sherlock Holmes spoke to your father, but the only evidence you have of this is a letter that he gave your father, would it be rational or irrational to believe that he spoke to your father?E-Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327848648278849664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-34491121284390596092009-11-09T18:31:21.226-05:002009-11-09T18:31:21.226-05:00Eman, the problem with George Washington is that w...Eman, the problem with George Washington is that we have a wealth of evidence of his existence, up to and including his skeleton. Yes he could be an elaborate historical hoax but it's extremely doubtful.<br />Matan Torah is based on faith. Other than the generation than stood there, it has always been accepted as a transmission of tradition.Garnel Ironheartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-29876437191808711702009-11-09T17:24:01.769-05:002009-11-09T17:24:01.769-05:00Just like a history book tells you there was a man...Just like a history book tells you there was a man named George washington so too there is the Bible that tells us that G-D spoke to the Jews as a nation. <br /><br />SO if G-D spoke to you as a nation I don;t think a belief in G-D in that situation would be irrational, the proof is that He spoke to you face to face.<br /><br />I am not making the argument of whether there is the same historical proof and evidence to back up this event. Rather, I am just saying, just like we nowadays know George Washington existed as a rational thought, because the people in his time period knew he existed, so too a Jew who believes the bible to be true would have the same rational thought. It is not irrational to believe in G-D in this way, just like it is not irrational to believe in George washington. <br /><br />All of this is predicated on the fact that these events happened in history.E-Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327848648278849664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-54151080577344456412009-11-09T17:16:34.093-05:002009-11-09T17:16:34.093-05:00David, if you noticed my statement it was if you b...David, if you noticed my statement it was if you believe in the bible then any belief in G-D is rational. This is because if you believe the bible is true then it tells a true history. Therefore, an orthodox Jews belief in G-D is just as real as George Washington.E-Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327848648278849664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-55302600687433264892009-11-09T17:15:13.217-05:002009-11-09T17:15:13.217-05:00The Jews at Har SInai. Otherwise, what eye witness...The Jews at Har SInai. Otherwise, what eye witnesses do we have for george washington, they are all dead also. <br /><br />I have not seen his wooden teeth either, can you produce them and prove they are george washington's?E-Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06327848648278849664noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1097749014220347853.post-33623074497952571132009-11-09T16:12:01.843-05:002009-11-09T16:12:01.843-05:00"We have so much from G-D, as long as you bel..."We have so much from G-D, as long as you believe that our mesorah is not made up."<br /><br />And that's the difference between God and George Washington. In George's case, it really doesn't matter what you think about a "mesorah." There is ample evidence to satisfy any rational person. Which is to say that your initial analogy was completely inaccurate.<br /><br /><br />"We have several eye witnesses. We have the luchos that the letters were written by G-D. Fine I will make the analogy of G-D and Josephus if that makes you feel better."<br /><br />We have eye witnesses to God? Who? Also, I was not aware that we had the luchos. I had not seen these. If you can produce them, I will yield this point cheerfully.Davidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15752938979399977997noreply@blogger.com