In my last post, I asked why the author of Search Judaism had devoted so much effort to debunking evolution. This isn’t his personal crusade: delegitimizing and ridiculing evolution is common in the frum world, and attempting to disprove it is a Creationist obsession. Last night I came across a short lecture by Daniel Dennet that helped me understand why.
He made the point that absent an alternative, it seems foolish to assert that something that shows every sign of being carefully planned and designed in fact arose by itself. We live in a world with a coherent explanation of how that can happen, so to us it seems obvious that even if evolution were to turn out to be the wrong explanation, we would find a different, naturalistic explanation for the appearance of design in nature. In a world that had never had such an explanation presented, accepting the Watchmaker Argument seems the more rational position.
The universe appears designed. We must account for that. It makes more sense to say it was designed then to say that design arose accidentally, by itself. Sure, there are problems with the Watchmaker Argument, but most people aren’t interested in philosophy and don’t know about them. Even for those that do, it still may seem more reasonable to assume some guiding force designed the universe. In the absence of any alternatives, that force was assumed to be some sort of deity.
What the theory of evolution does is posit a guiding force that is wholly materialistic, mechanistic, and devoid of intelligence or intent.
The debunking of evolution, then, is never intended to “prove” God’s existence. It is instead meant to remove evolution as a viable alternative. If evolution is not the cause of the appearance of design in the universe, then that design must be accounted for. There must be some force that caused that design. In the absence of any alternatives, that force is assumed to be some sort of deity.
That there is still no evidence for God’s existence is beside the point. The point is that there must be some guiding force, and we intuitively assume that such a force must be intelligent. Intelligent force designing the universe = God. To the theist making the argument, the alternative seems to be that it all just happened randomly, which is clearly ridiculous. The argument that there might be some other, wholly physical force at work which accounts for the design we see seems to be just a placeholder. In his mind, the atheist is saying, “I have no idea why the universe seems designed, but I refuse to believe in God, so I’m just going to say that somehow it happened.”
[An interesting thing about framing the argument as a debate over what the force that produced design in the universe is is that it sets up evolution as a direct rival to God, which may be one reason why the religious see it as so threatening.]
*****************************************************
I came across the following paragraph in The Evolution of God by Robert Wright, and I think sums up nicely what I was getting at in this post:
Darwinians who are atheists have been known to celebrate the failure of Paley’s explanation. They love to note how futile this attempt to empirically argue for the existence of God turned out to be. What they tend not to emphasize is that Paley was half right. The complex functionality of an organism does demand a special kind of explanation. It seems clear that hearts are here in some sense in order to pump blood, that digestive systems are here in order to digest food, that brains are here in order to (among other things) help organisms find food to digest. Rocks, in contrast, don’t seem to be here in order to do anything. The kinds of forces that created a rock just don’t seem likely to be the kinds of forced that would create an organism. It takes a special kind of force to do that – a force like natural selection.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Search Judaism – A Critique: Chapter Four, section four I
I’ve finally gotten around to continuing my critique of Search Judaism. I find that I’m only able to handle small doses of the misrepresentations and faulty reasoning before it goes from entertaining to frustrating, so I’m breaking up the current section into smaller parts.
Evolution (Chapter Four, section four)
The author begins by saying, “The theory of evolution is based on several assumptions.” He promises to objectively evaluate these assumptions and to see if the theory is based on science. So far so good.
Once again, though, one has to wonder why he is putting so much effort into “debunking” evolution. Evolution merely describes how biodiversity developed. It says nothing about the existence or non-existence of God. And, also again, if evolution were proven to be incorrect, all that means is that we would have to answer, “We don’t know” to the question, “How did biodiversity develop?” “We don’t know” does not equal “God did it.” The “God did it” hypothesis would need positive evidence in its favor to be accepted, not merely the refutation of other explanations. The implicit assumption seems to be that God is the default explanation, from which we deviate only when we have other theories.
Assumption 1
The author says that Darwinian evolution claims life evolved slowly, a step at a time, and asks if this is true. He cites the Burgess Shale, a large collection of fossils in the Canadian Rockies discovered by Charles Walcott that date back to the Cambrian period and one of the few to preserve impressions of the soft parts of specimens.
The author claims that Walcott was dismayed to discover, “that all these species were simultaneously present. In other words, there was no evolution over time. This posed a real problem for evolutionists because these fossils contained representatives from every phylum except just one of the phyla that exist today. No new phyla ever evolved after the Cambrian explosion.”
To begin with, while “phylum” sounds all sciencey, it’s actually an ill-defined term and according to Wikipedia, “…"phylum" may be a misnomer indicative of ignorance. Consequently the number of phyla varies from one author to the next.” So the claim that, “No new phyla ever evolved after the Cambrian explosion,” may be a matter of interpretation.
The author then claims that Walcott hid the specimens he collected in the Smithsonian’s archives, implying that he wanted to keep them out of sight so as not to challenge evolution, and that they weren’t “rediscovered” until 1985. Yet Walcott himself published detailed descriptions of his findings in 1908, hardly the action of a man concerned about keeping his discovery from the world, and there were digs at the site every few decades by various scientists to collect new specimens, including ongoing work from the mid-60s through the mid-80s. While Walcott’s specimens may have been “rediscovered” in 1985 as the author claims (I didn't find any information one way or the other), they clearly weren’t hidden away as part of a cover-up and many thousands of specimens from the Burgess Shale were definitely available to scientists in the intervening years.
Furthermroe, this wasn’t the stunning unexpected blow to evolution that the author makes it out to be. Darwin actually devoted an entire chapter of The Origin of Species to the sudden appearance of animal groups with few or no similar ancestors.
The author cites Stephen Jay Gould’s book on the Shale as claiming that scientists were wrong about Darwinian evolution, and that life did not evolve slowly, bit by bit, but that “diverse species emerged and evolved simultaneously.” The author here gives the false impression that the Shale thus proves that biological evolution is false. What he neglects to point out is that:
1) Stephen Jay Gould was a proponent of punctuated equilibrium, the theory that species remain more or less stable for long periods, then undergo sudden, rapid evolution in response to sudden changes in the environment.
2) Even if punctuated equilibrium rather than traditional Darwinian evolution is the more common form evolution takes, it is still the evolution of one species from another, not creationism ex nihlo by an omnipotent God.
3) There are various explanations proposed by scientists for why many of the animals preserved in the Burgess Shale appear without antecedents. Walcott proposed that the period in which the Cambrian animals found in the Shale evolved did not lend itself to fossilization and so the animals from that period are absent from the fossil record. Less speculatively, there are scientists who argue that many of the forms found in the Cambrian period are similar to types that evolved well before then, and there is debate as to whether the Cambrian period really represents an “explosion” of species.
Evolution (Chapter Four, section four)
The author begins by saying, “The theory of evolution is based on several assumptions.” He promises to objectively evaluate these assumptions and to see if the theory is based on science. So far so good.
Once again, though, one has to wonder why he is putting so much effort into “debunking” evolution. Evolution merely describes how biodiversity developed. It says nothing about the existence or non-existence of God. And, also again, if evolution were proven to be incorrect, all that means is that we would have to answer, “We don’t know” to the question, “How did biodiversity develop?” “We don’t know” does not equal “God did it.” The “God did it” hypothesis would need positive evidence in its favor to be accepted, not merely the refutation of other explanations. The implicit assumption seems to be that God is the default explanation, from which we deviate only when we have other theories.
Assumption 1
The author says that Darwinian evolution claims life evolved slowly, a step at a time, and asks if this is true. He cites the Burgess Shale, a large collection of fossils in the Canadian Rockies discovered by Charles Walcott that date back to the Cambrian period and one of the few to preserve impressions of the soft parts of specimens.
The author claims that Walcott was dismayed to discover, “that all these species were simultaneously present. In other words, there was no evolution over time. This posed a real problem for evolutionists because these fossils contained representatives from every phylum except just one of the phyla that exist today. No new phyla ever evolved after the Cambrian explosion.”
To begin with, while “phylum” sounds all sciencey, it’s actually an ill-defined term and according to Wikipedia, “…"phylum" may be a misnomer indicative of ignorance. Consequently the number of phyla varies from one author to the next.” So the claim that, “No new phyla ever evolved after the Cambrian explosion,” may be a matter of interpretation.
The author then claims that Walcott hid the specimens he collected in the Smithsonian’s archives, implying that he wanted to keep them out of sight so as not to challenge evolution, and that they weren’t “rediscovered” until 1985. Yet Walcott himself published detailed descriptions of his findings in 1908, hardly the action of a man concerned about keeping his discovery from the world, and there were digs at the site every few decades by various scientists to collect new specimens, including ongoing work from the mid-60s through the mid-80s. While Walcott’s specimens may have been “rediscovered” in 1985 as the author claims (I didn't find any information one way or the other), they clearly weren’t hidden away as part of a cover-up and many thousands of specimens from the Burgess Shale were definitely available to scientists in the intervening years.
Furthermroe, this wasn’t the stunning unexpected blow to evolution that the author makes it out to be. Darwin actually devoted an entire chapter of The Origin of Species to the sudden appearance of animal groups with few or no similar ancestors.
The author cites Stephen Jay Gould’s book on the Shale as claiming that scientists were wrong about Darwinian evolution, and that life did not evolve slowly, bit by bit, but that “diverse species emerged and evolved simultaneously.” The author here gives the false impression that the Shale thus proves that biological evolution is false. What he neglects to point out is that:
1) Stephen Jay Gould was a proponent of punctuated equilibrium, the theory that species remain more or less stable for long periods, then undergo sudden, rapid evolution in response to sudden changes in the environment.
2) Even if punctuated equilibrium rather than traditional Darwinian evolution is the more common form evolution takes, it is still the evolution of one species from another, not creationism ex nihlo by an omnipotent God.
3) There are various explanations proposed by scientists for why many of the animals preserved in the Burgess Shale appear without antecedents. Walcott proposed that the period in which the Cambrian animals found in the Shale evolved did not lend itself to fossilization and so the animals from that period are absent from the fossil record. Less speculatively, there are scientists who argue that many of the forms found in the Cambrian period are similar to types that evolved well before then, and there is debate as to whether the Cambrian period really represents an “explosion” of species.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Bias and Rationality
In the debate between believers and skeptics, each side often accuses the other of holding their positions for reasons other than the unassailable rationality of their worldview. To be blunt, each side accuses the other of holding the position they do due to a failure of character. The skeptic accuses the believer of being intellectually lazy and dishonest, of holding onto his belief because it is comforting, or because of his biases and upbringing, or because he has too much invested in his religion, or, most often of all, because the believer has simply never given his beliefs any real thought. The believer accuses the skeptic of denying the existence of God and the truth of his religion because the skeptic is angry at God, or because he has too much invested in being a non-believer, or, most often, because by denying God and religion the skeptic is then free to live a amoral hedonistic lifestyle.
It is interesting to note that the believer’s accusation is more vicious than the skeptics’ equivalent. The skeptic accuses the believer of wanting to hold onto his culturally-indoctrinated beliefs and of never bothering to challenge beliefs that he was taught to regard as self-evident. We all have unexamined beliefs, and most of us have neither the time nor the interest to investigate them all. You might even think of it as pragmatic laziness. While unexamined beliefs may leave one with an inaccurate perception of reality, assuming that the world is as our culture teaches us it is is not a moral failing.
The believer on the other hand accuses the skeptic of being an amoral hedonist, blinded to the Divine Truth by his base desires. What’s more, this is not the empirical consensus of the believing community, arrived at through their interactions with skeptics. It is instead a religious dogma that dictates only an immoral person would deny God’s existence. It can be found in sayings and anecdotes: One must be a slave to God or to his desires; There are no kashyos, only teirutzim. The skeptic, then, is a disgusting person who wallows in the base fleshly pleasures of the material world and tries to fool himself into believing there is no God so that he can indulge himself without feeling guilty. Such a person should be shunned, cast out of the community to protect the innocent and pious, and kept away from our precious impressionable children.
As insulting as the believer’s characterization of the skeptic’s motives is, I thought that it might be prudent to investigate whether the core claim has any merit. Stripped of its invective, the believer’s accusation is that the skeptic rejects God and religion not because he has come to the conclusion through rational inquiry that God doesn’t exist, but because he desires to do things which if God existed would be unwise. Rejecting God is therefore a direct result of the skeptic’s desires and a necessary step for his fulfillment of those desires.
In this conception of the skeptic’s motivation, the skeptic’s method of reaching conclusions mirrors that of the believer. The believer accepts on faith that God exists, and then rationalizes that belief. The skeptic “accepts on faith” that his desires should be fulfilled, and then rationalizes away God. (All right, it’s a little more subtle than that, as the claim is usually that the skeptic’s desires are unconsciously influencing him rather than an explicit statement that his desires must be fulfilled, but the parallel stands.)
Is there any merit to this? Might my desires be influencing me and blinding me to the existence of God and the Truth of Judaism?
I like to think of myself as rational, but I am all too aware that people, as a species, are not nearly as rational as we think we are. We all like to think that we’re the exception, but objectively I must admit that I’m probably not. While I was in school from time to time professors would present examples of how our minds trick us. In the back of my mind I always assumed that I would be able to see through the trick, that I was in some way superior to the plebes who suffered from the illusions of their own minds. Again and again, I was dismayed to find that I was as susceptible as anyone else.
Objectively, then, I cannot claim that I am wholly rational. As much as I may try to approach everything rationally, inevitably I am limited by the same human frailties as everyone else. I have my biases and preconceptions, my culturally-influenced worldview, and yes, my desires.
So, is my rejection of God’s existence wholly rational?
Surprisingly, I have to conclude that it’s not.
This is not to say that it is irrational. I think I have a sound rational basis for my skepticism. But had I been perfectly happy with all aspects of frum life, I would never have gone this route. My rejection of Judaism’s truth-claims does not stem wholly from a dispassionate evaluation of the religion, but from a base that includes a distaste for certain communal norms and the related desire to disregard them. This was one of the many factors that contributed to my skeptical stance, and I cannot disregard the likelihood that it influences my judgment.
Does this mean my conclusions are invalid? Not at all. To quote Philip K. Dick, “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” Do my biases, my “desires,” lead me to favor certain conclusions? Yes. Does that mean that those conclusions are wrong? No. I try to remain aware of my biases and to examine all arguments objectively, even though my instinctive reaction may be to dismiss theistic arguments out of hand. What we must all remember, believer and skeptic alike, is that whatever our desires, whatever our biases, reality is what it is. Brute facts are care nothing for our desires. And it is upon the facts that we must base our conclusions.
So while I didn’t arrive at my current worldview wholly through dispassionate rational inquiry, I think I am justified in rejecting the believer’s characterization of the skeptic’s motives. My conclusions, while undoubtedly influenced by my desires and biases, do not rest upon them but upon the facts.
It is interesting to note that the believer’s accusation is more vicious than the skeptics’ equivalent. The skeptic accuses the believer of wanting to hold onto his culturally-indoctrinated beliefs and of never bothering to challenge beliefs that he was taught to regard as self-evident. We all have unexamined beliefs, and most of us have neither the time nor the interest to investigate them all. You might even think of it as pragmatic laziness. While unexamined beliefs may leave one with an inaccurate perception of reality, assuming that the world is as our culture teaches us it is is not a moral failing.
The believer on the other hand accuses the skeptic of being an amoral hedonist, blinded to the Divine Truth by his base desires. What’s more, this is not the empirical consensus of the believing community, arrived at through their interactions with skeptics. It is instead a religious dogma that dictates only an immoral person would deny God’s existence. It can be found in sayings and anecdotes: One must be a slave to God or to his desires; There are no kashyos, only teirutzim. The skeptic, then, is a disgusting person who wallows in the base fleshly pleasures of the material world and tries to fool himself into believing there is no God so that he can indulge himself without feeling guilty. Such a person should be shunned, cast out of the community to protect the innocent and pious, and kept away from our precious impressionable children.
As insulting as the believer’s characterization of the skeptic’s motives is, I thought that it might be prudent to investigate whether the core claim has any merit. Stripped of its invective, the believer’s accusation is that the skeptic rejects God and religion not because he has come to the conclusion through rational inquiry that God doesn’t exist, but because he desires to do things which if God existed would be unwise. Rejecting God is therefore a direct result of the skeptic’s desires and a necessary step for his fulfillment of those desires.
In this conception of the skeptic’s motivation, the skeptic’s method of reaching conclusions mirrors that of the believer. The believer accepts on faith that God exists, and then rationalizes that belief. The skeptic “accepts on faith” that his desires should be fulfilled, and then rationalizes away God. (All right, it’s a little more subtle than that, as the claim is usually that the skeptic’s desires are unconsciously influencing him rather than an explicit statement that his desires must be fulfilled, but the parallel stands.)
Is there any merit to this? Might my desires be influencing me and blinding me to the existence of God and the Truth of Judaism?
I like to think of myself as rational, but I am all too aware that people, as a species, are not nearly as rational as we think we are. We all like to think that we’re the exception, but objectively I must admit that I’m probably not. While I was in school from time to time professors would present examples of how our minds trick us. In the back of my mind I always assumed that I would be able to see through the trick, that I was in some way superior to the plebes who suffered from the illusions of their own minds. Again and again, I was dismayed to find that I was as susceptible as anyone else.
Objectively, then, I cannot claim that I am wholly rational. As much as I may try to approach everything rationally, inevitably I am limited by the same human frailties as everyone else. I have my biases and preconceptions, my culturally-influenced worldview, and yes, my desires.
So, is my rejection of God’s existence wholly rational?
Surprisingly, I have to conclude that it’s not.
This is not to say that it is irrational. I think I have a sound rational basis for my skepticism. But had I been perfectly happy with all aspects of frum life, I would never have gone this route. My rejection of Judaism’s truth-claims does not stem wholly from a dispassionate evaluation of the religion, but from a base that includes a distaste for certain communal norms and the related desire to disregard them. This was one of the many factors that contributed to my skeptical stance, and I cannot disregard the likelihood that it influences my judgment.
Does this mean my conclusions are invalid? Not at all. To quote Philip K. Dick, “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.” Do my biases, my “desires,” lead me to favor certain conclusions? Yes. Does that mean that those conclusions are wrong? No. I try to remain aware of my biases and to examine all arguments objectively, even though my instinctive reaction may be to dismiss theistic arguments out of hand. What we must all remember, believer and skeptic alike, is that whatever our desires, whatever our biases, reality is what it is. Brute facts are care nothing for our desires. And it is upon the facts that we must base our conclusions.
So while I didn’t arrive at my current worldview wholly through dispassionate rational inquiry, I think I am justified in rejecting the believer’s characterization of the skeptic’s motives. My conclusions, while undoubtedly influenced by my desires and biases, do not rest upon them but upon the facts.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Index
Best of
The Rasha
My first post. A brief explanation of my point of view.
Wild Mass Guessing
A discussion of why so many religious explanation seem so convoluted, with references to TVtropes, a favorite site of mine.
Objective Morality, or, God’s Classroom Rules
Why we’re so hung up on morality and its failure as a proof for religion.
Duex Ex Homo Sapiens
Possibly my favorite post, it references all of my favorite intellectual pursuits: theology, philosophy, psychology, and history. It’s also particularly well-written, if I do say so myself.
Does Being Wrong Make Something Wrong?
What is a valid way to evaluate the truth of a religion, and does the morality of a religion’s tenets have any bearing on its truth.
Search Judaism critique
The first post in the series, serving as a stand-in for the series so far. (I’ll be continuing it in the near future. Really!) Writing the critique has finally given me a practical use for all the bits of trivia I’ve picked up, and is basically a game of spot-the-error. That said, at least the author tried to approach religion rationally, something that the majority of people never do.
Blogging / debating
The Rasha
Selective Skeptical Debate – Or, Pushing Emotional Buttons
Am I A Zealot?
Live and Let Live
Theology
Boo Boo Bye Bye
Do Believers in the Afterlife Believe in After-Life?
Is God Good?
Why is Faith a Virtue?
Truth in Religion and Science: Working Backwards, Working Forwards
The Virtue of Faith Despite Adversity
Wild Mass Guessing
Duex Ex Homo Sapiens
Mechanistic Metaphysics
Does Being Wrong Make Something Wrong?
Free Will at Gunpoint
For Want of a Nail…
Path to skepticism
Once Upon A Time…
Fences of Tissue Paper
Growing Up Different
Effortful Thinking
Response to articles / things read
Cosmic Coincidence
Eating is Sexy
Bloggers vs. Conformists
Bloggers vs. Conformists Redux
Shabbos Reading
Defenders of the Faith
Haman’s Ingratitude
Reminiscing / culture
The Girl in the Blue Uniform
Condemned to the Fiery Pits of Shul
An Exercise in Self-Righteousness
Don’t Be A Baal HaBayis
The Unwashed Masses
Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll
People Like Me in Entertainment Media
V’shinantam L’vanecha…
The Kollel Meme
Morality
Is it Wrong to be Immoral?
Objective Morality, or, God’s Classroom Rules
Holidays
For Whom do We Mourn
Ellul, the Month of the Storm God
Nihilism
Does the Future Matter?
The Worth of a Sandwich
Search Judaism
A Gift of Apologetics
Search Judaism – A Critique: Introduction & Chapter One, section one
Search Judaism – A Critique: Chapter One, section two
Search Judaism – A Critique: Chapter One, section three
Search Judaism – A Critique: Chapter One, section four
Search Judaism – A Critique: Chapter Two, section one
Search Judaism – A Critique: Chapter Two, section two
Search Judaism – A Critique: Chapter Two, section three
Search Judaism – A Critique: Chapter Three, section one
Search Judaism – A Critique: Chapter Three, section two
Search Judaism – A Critique: Chapter Three, section three
Search Judaism – A Critique: Chapter Three, section four
Search Judaism – A Critique: Part Two (I)
Search Judaism – A Critique: Part Two (II)
Search Judaism – A Critique: Part Two (III)
Search Judaism – A Critique: Chapter Four, section one
Search Judaism – A Critique: Chapter Four, section two
Search Judaism – A Critique: Chapter Four, section three
Search Judaism – A Critique: Clearing up Contradictions
For Fun
The Agudah Convention (A Parody)
The Devil’s Dictionary
I’m Psychic!
The Rasha
My first post. A brief explanation of my point of view.
Wild Mass Guessing
A discussion of why so many religious explanation seem so convoluted, with references to TVtropes, a favorite site of mine.
Objective Morality, or, God’s Classroom Rules
Why we’re so hung up on morality and its failure as a proof for religion.
Duex Ex Homo Sapiens
Possibly my favorite post, it references all of my favorite intellectual pursuits: theology, philosophy, psychology, and history. It’s also particularly well-written, if I do say so myself.
Does Being Wrong Make Something Wrong?
What is a valid way to evaluate the truth of a religion, and does the morality of a religion’s tenets have any bearing on its truth.
Search Judaism critique
The first post in the series, serving as a stand-in for the series so far. (I’ll be continuing it in the near future. Really!) Writing the critique has finally given me a practical use for all the bits of trivia I’ve picked up, and is basically a game of spot-the-error. That said, at least the author tried to approach religion rationally, something that the majority of people never do.
Blogging / debating
The Rasha
Selective Skeptical Debate – Or, Pushing Emotional Buttons
Am I A Zealot?
Live and Let Live
Theology
Boo Boo Bye Bye
Do Believers in the Afterlife Believe in After-Life?
Is God Good?
Why is Faith a Virtue?
Truth in Religion and Science: Working Backwards, Working Forwards
The Virtue of Faith Despite Adversity
Wild Mass Guessing
Duex Ex Homo Sapiens
Mechanistic Metaphysics
Does Being Wrong Make Something Wrong?
Free Will at Gunpoint
For Want of a Nail…
Path to skepticism
Once Upon A Time…
Fences of Tissue Paper
Growing Up Different
Effortful Thinking
Response to articles / things read
Cosmic Coincidence
Eating is Sexy
Bloggers vs. Conformists
Bloggers vs. Conformists Redux
Shabbos Reading
Defenders of the Faith
Haman’s Ingratitude
Reminiscing / culture
The Girl in the Blue Uniform
Condemned to the Fiery Pits of Shul
An Exercise in Self-Righteousness
Don’t Be A Baal HaBayis
The Unwashed Masses
Sex, Drugs, and Rock & Roll
People Like Me in Entertainment Media
V’shinantam L’vanecha…
The Kollel Meme
Morality
Is it Wrong to be Immoral?
Objective Morality, or, God’s Classroom Rules
Holidays
For Whom do We Mourn
Ellul, the Month of the Storm God
Nihilism
Does the Future Matter?
The Worth of a Sandwich
Search Judaism
A Gift of Apologetics
Search Judaism – A Critique: Introduction & Chapter One, section one
Search Judaism – A Critique: Chapter One, section two
Search Judaism – A Critique: Chapter One, section three
Search Judaism – A Critique: Chapter One, section four
Search Judaism – A Critique: Chapter Two, section one
Search Judaism – A Critique: Chapter Two, section two
Search Judaism – A Critique: Chapter Two, section three
Search Judaism – A Critique: Chapter Three, section one
Search Judaism – A Critique: Chapter Three, section two
Search Judaism – A Critique: Chapter Three, section three
Search Judaism – A Critique: Chapter Three, section four
Search Judaism – A Critique: Part Two (I)
Search Judaism – A Critique: Part Two (II)
Search Judaism – A Critique: Part Two (III)
Search Judaism – A Critique: Chapter Four, section one
Search Judaism – A Critique: Chapter Four, section two
Search Judaism – A Critique: Chapter Four, section three
Search Judaism – A Critique: Clearing up Contradictions
For Fun
The Agudah Convention (A Parody)
The Devil’s Dictionary
I’m Psychic!
Belated Anniversary Post
It’s now been over a year since I started this blog. I meant to post on the actual anniversary, but I was away for Pesach and have been busy or not in the mood since I got back.
A year’s a long time. I may not post frequently, but I usually write every couple of weeks, and for a while I was writing every day. Since I’ve started following the blogosphere I’ve seen some good blogs (and some not-so-good ones) start up, run for a few months, then stand abandoned when their authors disappear from cyberspace. So, congratulations to me!
(Why thank you, me.)
When I started writing I thought I would record some of the incidents and insights in my life that have brought me to my current position on religion. I’ve done some of that, but I’ve also found myself writing frequently about theology, morality, and philosophy. I’ve found that writing out my ideas helps me to understand my own position better, as it forces me to lay out the ideas and arguments and explain them rather than leave them as a confused jumble in my head. Feedback from other people helps to refine ideas, either by modifying or discarding mistaken bits or by making me better define and explain them. So, thank you to all the commenters.
At this point, I suppose I could write about the purpose of the blog, perhaps about what I hope to accomplish. Except that it doesn’t really have a purpose. It’s just a hobby. Sure, blogs are what helped me realize I wasn't unique, that there are other people who grew up frum who think the same way I do, and it’s great to be able to communicate with like-minded people (and even with people who vehemently disagree, as long as they are interested in polite discussion). If reading this blog helps someone else connect with an online community, great! But I wouldn’t make too much of it. Mostly, it’s entertainment.
The following are posts that I somewhat arbitrarily decided to include in a “best of” list. The next post is a categorized index of the last year’s worth of posts. I hope you all enjoy them as much as I do.
The Rasha
My first post. A brief explanation of my point of view.
Wild Mass Guessing
A discussion of why so many religious explanation seem so convoluted, with references to TVtropes, a favorite site of mine.
Objective Morality, or, God’s Classroom Rules
Why we’re so hung up on morality and its failure as a proof for religion.
Duex Ex Homo Sapiens
Possibly my favorite post, it references all of my favorite intellectual pursuits: theology, philosophy, psychology, and history. It’s also particularly well-written, if I do say so myself.
Does Being Wrong Make Something Wrong?
What is a valid way to evaluate the truth of a religion, and does the morality of a religion’s tenets have any bearing on its truth.
Search Judaism critique
The first post in the series, serving as a stand-in for the series so far. (I’ll be continuing it in the near future. Really!) Writing the critique has finally given me a practical use for all the bits of trivia I’ve picked up, and is basically a game of spot-the-error. That said, at least the author tried to approach religion rationally, something that the majority of people never do.
For the full index of posts, click here.
A year’s a long time. I may not post frequently, but I usually write every couple of weeks, and for a while I was writing every day. Since I’ve started following the blogosphere I’ve seen some good blogs (and some not-so-good ones) start up, run for a few months, then stand abandoned when their authors disappear from cyberspace. So, congratulations to me!
(Why thank you, me.)
When I started writing I thought I would record some of the incidents and insights in my life that have brought me to my current position on religion. I’ve done some of that, but I’ve also found myself writing frequently about theology, morality, and philosophy. I’ve found that writing out my ideas helps me to understand my own position better, as it forces me to lay out the ideas and arguments and explain them rather than leave them as a confused jumble in my head. Feedback from other people helps to refine ideas, either by modifying or discarding mistaken bits or by making me better define and explain them. So, thank you to all the commenters.
At this point, I suppose I could write about the purpose of the blog, perhaps about what I hope to accomplish. Except that it doesn’t really have a purpose. It’s just a hobby. Sure, blogs are what helped me realize I wasn't unique, that there are other people who grew up frum who think the same way I do, and it’s great to be able to communicate with like-minded people (and even with people who vehemently disagree, as long as they are interested in polite discussion). If reading this blog helps someone else connect with an online community, great! But I wouldn’t make too much of it. Mostly, it’s entertainment.
The following are posts that I somewhat arbitrarily decided to include in a “best of” list. The next post is a categorized index of the last year’s worth of posts. I hope you all enjoy them as much as I do.
The Rasha
My first post. A brief explanation of my point of view.
Wild Mass Guessing
A discussion of why so many religious explanation seem so convoluted, with references to TVtropes, a favorite site of mine.
Objective Morality, or, God’s Classroom Rules
Why we’re so hung up on morality and its failure as a proof for religion.
Duex Ex Homo Sapiens
Possibly my favorite post, it references all of my favorite intellectual pursuits: theology, philosophy, psychology, and history. It’s also particularly well-written, if I do say so myself.
Does Being Wrong Make Something Wrong?
What is a valid way to evaluate the truth of a religion, and does the morality of a religion’s tenets have any bearing on its truth.
Search Judaism critique
The first post in the series, serving as a stand-in for the series so far. (I’ll be continuing it in the near future. Really!) Writing the critique has finally given me a practical use for all the bits of trivia I’ve picked up, and is basically a game of spot-the-error. That said, at least the author tried to approach religion rationally, something that the majority of people never do.
For the full index of posts, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)