The comments thread at this VIN article about the age of Rivkah at her wedding ought to be interesting to watch. Perhaps I'll comment on it later.
The Wolf
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
I'm Convinced 'Torah Proofs' Cause More Harm Than Good
Sometimes I have to wonder if people who peddle "Torah proofs" aren't, in fact, doing more damage than good. They proclaim that they have "scientific proof" that the Torah is divine and then follow it up with arguments that could be called faulty at best and downright loony at worst. Personally, I feel that no proof is better than a bad proof. If I tell you that I believe that God exists and that the Torah is divine, it's not subject to refutation. True, a belief on my part is not as strong as a "proof," but unlike a bad "proof," it won't leave someone feeling "lied to" when they discover the truth of the argument.
I just listened to one such lecture given (downloadable here) by Rabbi Yossi Mizrachi. The title of the lecture is Proof That Torah is Divine Part I. In his lecture, he claims to bring "scientific proofs" that the Torah is of Divine origin. Sad to say, very few of his "proofs" stand up to serious scrutiny. He goes through a lot of material in his presentation, and for me to debunk everything he says would simply take too much time. However, I don't actually have to debunk everything he says. Right at the beginning of the lecture, he presents his cardinal rule for debunking religions -- if a mistake can be found in the "holy book" of a religion, then it is a proof that the book is not Divine and the religion that it supports is bunk. So, the net result is that, according to him, if I can show that any one of his premises regarding the Torah is false, and that the Torah has a flaw, then Judaism itself is bunk. That's a rather high bar to set and, if I apply to Judaism the same conditions that he applies to other religions, then it's easy to show that Judaism is false.
Before I go any further, I want to make one thing very clear: I *do* believe in Judaism. Just because a person shows that a "proof" to Judaism is flawed and invalid doesn't make the religion itself flawed and invalid. I *do* believe that the Torah is of Divine origin and if a real proof to it is discovered one day, I will wholeheartedly embrace it. But I will not embrace flawed proofs, shoddy logic or emotional claptrap.
Biblical Errors And Consistent Standards
As I mentioned earlier, Rabbi Mizrachi begins with his cardinal rule; that if an error can be found in a "Divine book," then that error serves proof that the book is, in fact, not Divine, and that the religion that it supports is false. As an example, he brings up the verse in Acts 7:14 which states that Jacob went down to Egypt with 75 people. Of course, we know from Beraishis (46:27) and Shemos (1:5) that the number of people that went down to Egypt was only seventy. Did God forget how many people went down? Of course not, hence, it is argued that Acts (and, by extension, the rest of the Christian Bible) is a flawed document and not Divine.
On the surface, it's a sound argument. However, one has to wonder if Rabbi Mizrachi actually gave the Christians and honest and sincere hearing on the matter. Assuming that most of the Christian clergy are not total idiots, I'm fairly certain that some of them must have noticed this contradiction. Has he asked any of them for an explanation? Somehow, I doubt it. A simple Google serach turned up two possible answers that Christians can use to reconcile the 70/75 count; and, truth to tell, those answers are entirely plausible -- or at least certainly as plausible as the answer given to explain why the total given in Beraishis 46 is 70 while only 69 names are mentioned.
In other words, I can support the basic premise that Rabbi Mizrachi puts forward -- i.e. that if you find a flaw in a book claiming to be Divine then the book is not Divine. What I do object to, however, is the fallacy of holding Christians accountable for contradictions in the text itself, without giving them a chance to reconcile the contradictions, while allowing Chazal, the Rishonim and Achronim to engage in explanations that, to an outsider, would sound far-fetched and forced. In other words, if you're going to call out Christian books because they contradict themselves (or other established sources), then you have to allow the adherents to explain the contradictions; much as you wold allow yourself to explain the apparent contradictions in Tanach. I'm not saying, of course, that you have to accept the explanations offered, but, in the name of honesty, you have to give them the chance and to accept the possibility of an explainable if it sounds plausible. Somehow, my gut tells me that Rabbi Mizrachi would not accept *any* explanation from a Christian of the 70/75 discrepancy, but would entertain almost any effort to explain an apparent error in the Torah.
Mass Revelation
Rabbi Mizrachi also brings up the argument of mass revelation. In short, the argument is that Judaism is unique because it has, at its origin, a mass revelation. Millions of people (he says between six and fifteen million, but that's quite a stretch, even accepting the 600,000 number as literally true) stood at Mt. Sinai and literally heard God speak. Putting aside, for a moment, the fact that the only proof that this happened is because it says it in the very book you're trying to prove, it's a fair argument. Most religions, begin with a single individual who makes an unverifiable claim (Mohammed receiving the Koran from the angel Gabriel, Joseph Smith receiving the Golden Plates from the angel Moroni, etc.). The fact that Judaism makes a claim of mass revelation is a striking point in its favor. However, Rabbi Mizrachi is not content with that. He says that if *any* religion can claim that they had an origin even involving one other eyewitness, then that proves the Torah is false, since (and I don't know his source for this) he says that Torah says that no other religion will be able to make the claim of a plural origin.
Sadly, his claims do not stand up to scrutiny. The Aztecs, for example, had a mass revelation story. They believed that their god, Huitzilopochtli, led them (in person) to the site of present-day Mexico City. Based on Rabbi Mizrachi's assertion, the very fact that another group even claims a mass revelation shows that the Torah is not true. I suppose it's a good thing that I don't agree with Rabbi Mizrachi's underlying assertion. :)
Textual Variations and Consistent Standards
The next claim he makes is that if a "holy book" has multiple versions, then it cannot be divine. After all, how would you know which version is the correct one? He makes the point that there are over 150,000 textual variations of the New Testament (I don't know if this is correct or not... it's really beside the point) and therefore, it's impossible to determine which is the "correct" version that would have been Divinely given. R. Mizrachi makes the point that no matter where you go in the world, the Torah is the same. Since it's the same everywhere in the world, it must be divine. Well, I don't know if Rabbi Mizrachi has ever been to Yemen, but there are Jews there that have a different Torah than ours. In fact, there are nine differences. But even if we dismiss the Yemenite Torahs, we even have differences here in the United States. There are two different versions of the word "daka" in Devarim 23:2; some Torahs have an aleph as the last letter while some have a heh. So, which Torah is the correct one? The Yemenite? The daka-aleph? The daka-heh? Does this mean that the Torah is not divine? If Rabbi Mizrachi were to apply the same standard that he does to the Christians to the Torah, he'd have to say no, but I don't think he's going to do that.
Faulty "Scientific" Proofs And Dubious Claims
In his lecture, Rabbi Mizrachi attempts to give "scientific proof" to the divinity of the Torah, but all that happens is that he comes off sounding incredibly uneducated about science. He trots out various "proofs," however, very often the underlying assumption of the proof is simply wrong.
For example, he tries to prove that the Jews knew, through the Torah (specifically, a verse in Isaiah), that the world was round before anyone else. He mentions that before Columbus, no one knew that the world was round. The spherical nature of the earth was discovered when Columbus sailed off to the west and returned from the east. Of course, that's not true. In order to do that, you have to go around the world, something that Columbus never did. It was not until Magellan's voyage, in 1521, that anyone actually went around the world. However, even that's not important, because people *did* know that the world is round many years before Columbus. The ancient Greeks knew the world was round because they observed that the earth casts a circular shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse.
He also tries to show that the Zohar, written in the days of the Tanaim (itself a very dubious claim) revealed many secrets of the world, that could not have been known before the advent of modern science. However, for two of the proofs that he brings, it's very clear that the Zohar was *not* written by a Divine Being. A Divine Being would not have peddled such incorrect information.
One proof from the Zohar that he mentions is a passage that descibes that there is one place in the world where it is always light and only dark for one hour a day -- the North Pole. However, that statement is simply not true. The North Pole is not always bathed in light except for one hour. The fact is that the sun is above the horizon at the North Pole for six months in the summer and below the horizon for six months in the winter. In other words, it is daytime for six months straight and night (to various degrees) for six months. In other words, the Zohar is completely wrong in the way it describes the North Pole.
Another "proof" from the Zohar is the fact that different people in the world look differently. According to the Zohar (at least according to Rabbi Mizrachi -- I haven't actually checked the source material), the climate affects the appearance of people. Or, to put it in Rabbi Mizrachi's words: "In Africa, everyone is black, almost the same face. Same hair, same face, same shape in the face. You go to China -- copy machine. Two billion copies." Rabbi Mizrachi clearly doesn't know what he's talking about here -- Africa is the most genetically diverse place on Earth. To say that everyone in Africa has the "same hair, same face, same shape in the face," simply shows that Rabbi Mizrachi hasn't done a great deal of reading about genetics or geography. In any event, to get to the point, the fact that different people in different regions look different is hardly a surprising discovery, even in the days when the Zohar is said to have been written. Anyone who had traveled would have known that.
As another proof to the idea that only God could have written the Torah, he mentions the Gemara in Megillah which purports to give the exact number of stars. Rabbi Mizrachi states that the number given is 1019 , although the true number mentioned in the Gemara is approximately 1018. However, we can forgive him the math error. What's harder to overlook is the simple logical mistake of using the Gemara's figure to prove the actual number of stars. In other words, the Gemara gives a really number, so it *must* be right. The fact is that the only way to prove that it's right is to compare it to another counting. The current estimate to the number of stars is actually 7x1022.
There are other "proofs" that he brings in his speech, which are equally easy to discredit (the four animals proof, the fins/scales proof and the calendar proof stand out most prominently), but this post has already gone on for quite a while.
There is, however, a deeper, more fundamental problem with Rabbi Mizrachi's argument. He attempts to prove that the Torah (and by extension, the Oral Torah) is Divine because it's an error-free document and contains information that only a Divine Being could have possessed. However, by allowing supporting proof from the Gemara and the Zohar, he also leaves them open to refutation. In other words, if you're going to claim that the Pentateuch is divine, then you can only find fault with items in the Pentateuch. But by stating that the Gemara and Zohar are also divine, Rabbi Mizrachi is asserting that they, too, are error-proof. He's also asserting that they, too, must be free of textual variations (since a divine document must have only one version). The fact of the matter is that there is no one today who will say that the Gemara doesn't have textual variations. So, according to Rabbi Mizrachi's definition, the Gemara is not Divine; and if the Gemara is not divine, then the religion it supports, Judaism, must be false.
Far More Harm Than Help
At the beginning of his speech, Rabbi Mizrachi states that over 100,000 people are religious today because of this lecture (whether delivered by him or someone else). All I can say is that I find that *extremely* hard to believe. I'm not the smartest guy in the world, and yet, I was able to pick apart most of his arguments pretty easily. If this is the "proof" of Judaism, I'm left to wonder if his lectures don't do far more harm to the kiruv movement than help.
The Wolf
I just listened to one such lecture given (downloadable here) by Rabbi Yossi Mizrachi. The title of the lecture is Proof That Torah is Divine Part I. In his lecture, he claims to bring "scientific proofs" that the Torah is of Divine origin. Sad to say, very few of his "proofs" stand up to serious scrutiny. He goes through a lot of material in his presentation, and for me to debunk everything he says would simply take too much time. However, I don't actually have to debunk everything he says. Right at the beginning of the lecture, he presents his cardinal rule for debunking religions -- if a mistake can be found in the "holy book" of a religion, then it is a proof that the book is not Divine and the religion that it supports is bunk. So, the net result is that, according to him, if I can show that any one of his premises regarding the Torah is false, and that the Torah has a flaw, then Judaism itself is bunk. That's a rather high bar to set and, if I apply to Judaism the same conditions that he applies to other religions, then it's easy to show that Judaism is false.
Before I go any further, I want to make one thing very clear: I *do* believe in Judaism. Just because a person shows that a "proof" to Judaism is flawed and invalid doesn't make the religion itself flawed and invalid. I *do* believe that the Torah is of Divine origin and if a real proof to it is discovered one day, I will wholeheartedly embrace it. But I will not embrace flawed proofs, shoddy logic or emotional claptrap.
Biblical Errors And Consistent Standards
As I mentioned earlier, Rabbi Mizrachi begins with his cardinal rule; that if an error can be found in a "Divine book," then that error serves proof that the book is, in fact, not Divine, and that the religion that it supports is false. As an example, he brings up the verse in Acts 7:14 which states that Jacob went down to Egypt with 75 people. Of course, we know from Beraishis (46:27) and Shemos (1:5) that the number of people that went down to Egypt was only seventy. Did God forget how many people went down? Of course not, hence, it is argued that Acts (and, by extension, the rest of the Christian Bible) is a flawed document and not Divine.
On the surface, it's a sound argument. However, one has to wonder if Rabbi Mizrachi actually gave the Christians and honest and sincere hearing on the matter. Assuming that most of the Christian clergy are not total idiots, I'm fairly certain that some of them must have noticed this contradiction. Has he asked any of them for an explanation? Somehow, I doubt it. A simple Google serach turned up two possible answers that Christians can use to reconcile the 70/75 count; and, truth to tell, those answers are entirely plausible -- or at least certainly as plausible as the answer given to explain why the total given in Beraishis 46 is 70 while only 69 names are mentioned.
In other words, I can support the basic premise that Rabbi Mizrachi puts forward -- i.e. that if you find a flaw in a book claiming to be Divine then the book is not Divine. What I do object to, however, is the fallacy of holding Christians accountable for contradictions in the text itself, without giving them a chance to reconcile the contradictions, while allowing Chazal, the Rishonim and Achronim to engage in explanations that, to an outsider, would sound far-fetched and forced. In other words, if you're going to call out Christian books because they contradict themselves (or other established sources), then you have to allow the adherents to explain the contradictions; much as you wold allow yourself to explain the apparent contradictions in Tanach. I'm not saying, of course, that you have to accept the explanations offered, but, in the name of honesty, you have to give them the chance and to accept the possibility of an explainable if it sounds plausible. Somehow, my gut tells me that Rabbi Mizrachi would not accept *any* explanation from a Christian of the 70/75 discrepancy, but would entertain almost any effort to explain an apparent error in the Torah.
Mass Revelation
Rabbi Mizrachi also brings up the argument of mass revelation. In short, the argument is that Judaism is unique because it has, at its origin, a mass revelation. Millions of people (he says between six and fifteen million, but that's quite a stretch, even accepting the 600,000 number as literally true) stood at Mt. Sinai and literally heard God speak. Putting aside, for a moment, the fact that the only proof that this happened is because it says it in the very book you're trying to prove, it's a fair argument. Most religions, begin with a single individual who makes an unverifiable claim (Mohammed receiving the Koran from the angel Gabriel, Joseph Smith receiving the Golden Plates from the angel Moroni, etc.). The fact that Judaism makes a claim of mass revelation is a striking point in its favor. However, Rabbi Mizrachi is not content with that. He says that if *any* religion can claim that they had an origin even involving one other eyewitness, then that proves the Torah is false, since (and I don't know his source for this) he says that Torah says that no other religion will be able to make the claim of a plural origin.
Sadly, his claims do not stand up to scrutiny. The Aztecs, for example, had a mass revelation story. They believed that their god, Huitzilopochtli, led them (in person) to the site of present-day Mexico City. Based on Rabbi Mizrachi's assertion, the very fact that another group even claims a mass revelation shows that the Torah is not true. I suppose it's a good thing that I don't agree with Rabbi Mizrachi's underlying assertion. :)
Textual Variations and Consistent Standards
The next claim he makes is that if a "holy book" has multiple versions, then it cannot be divine. After all, how would you know which version is the correct one? He makes the point that there are over 150,000 textual variations of the New Testament (I don't know if this is correct or not... it's really beside the point) and therefore, it's impossible to determine which is the "correct" version that would have been Divinely given. R. Mizrachi makes the point that no matter where you go in the world, the Torah is the same. Since it's the same everywhere in the world, it must be divine. Well, I don't know if Rabbi Mizrachi has ever been to Yemen, but there are Jews there that have a different Torah than ours. In fact, there are nine differences. But even if we dismiss the Yemenite Torahs, we even have differences here in the United States. There are two different versions of the word "daka" in Devarim 23:2; some Torahs have an aleph as the last letter while some have a heh. So, which Torah is the correct one? The Yemenite? The daka-aleph? The daka-heh? Does this mean that the Torah is not divine? If Rabbi Mizrachi were to apply the same standard that he does to the Christians to the Torah, he'd have to say no, but I don't think he's going to do that.
Faulty "Scientific" Proofs And Dubious Claims
In his lecture, Rabbi Mizrachi attempts to give "scientific proof" to the divinity of the Torah, but all that happens is that he comes off sounding incredibly uneducated about science. He trots out various "proofs," however, very often the underlying assumption of the proof is simply wrong.
For example, he tries to prove that the Jews knew, through the Torah (specifically, a verse in Isaiah), that the world was round before anyone else. He mentions that before Columbus, no one knew that the world was round. The spherical nature of the earth was discovered when Columbus sailed off to the west and returned from the east. Of course, that's not true. In order to do that, you have to go around the world, something that Columbus never did. It was not until Magellan's voyage, in 1521, that anyone actually went around the world. However, even that's not important, because people *did* know that the world is round many years before Columbus. The ancient Greeks knew the world was round because they observed that the earth casts a circular shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse.
He also tries to show that the Zohar, written in the days of the Tanaim (itself a very dubious claim) revealed many secrets of the world, that could not have been known before the advent of modern science. However, for two of the proofs that he brings, it's very clear that the Zohar was *not* written by a Divine Being. A Divine Being would not have peddled such incorrect information.
One proof from the Zohar that he mentions is a passage that descibes that there is one place in the world where it is always light and only dark for one hour a day -- the North Pole. However, that statement is simply not true. The North Pole is not always bathed in light except for one hour. The fact is that the sun is above the horizon at the North Pole for six months in the summer and below the horizon for six months in the winter. In other words, it is daytime for six months straight and night (to various degrees) for six months. In other words, the Zohar is completely wrong in the way it describes the North Pole.
Another "proof" from the Zohar is the fact that different people in the world look differently. According to the Zohar (at least according to Rabbi Mizrachi -- I haven't actually checked the source material), the climate affects the appearance of people. Or, to put it in Rabbi Mizrachi's words: "In Africa, everyone is black, almost the same face. Same hair, same face, same shape in the face. You go to China -- copy machine. Two billion copies." Rabbi Mizrachi clearly doesn't know what he's talking about here -- Africa is the most genetically diverse place on Earth. To say that everyone in Africa has the "same hair, same face, same shape in the face," simply shows that Rabbi Mizrachi hasn't done a great deal of reading about genetics or geography. In any event, to get to the point, the fact that different people in different regions look different is hardly a surprising discovery, even in the days when the Zohar is said to have been written. Anyone who had traveled would have known that.
As another proof to the idea that only God could have written the Torah, he mentions the Gemara in Megillah which purports to give the exact number of stars. Rabbi Mizrachi states that the number given is 1019 , although the true number mentioned in the Gemara is approximately 1018. However, we can forgive him the math error. What's harder to overlook is the simple logical mistake of using the Gemara's figure to prove the actual number of stars. In other words, the Gemara gives a really number, so it *must* be right. The fact is that the only way to prove that it's right is to compare it to another counting. The current estimate to the number of stars is actually 7x1022.
There are other "proofs" that he brings in his speech, which are equally easy to discredit (the four animals proof, the fins/scales proof and the calendar proof stand out most prominently), but this post has already gone on for quite a while.
Where R. Mizrachi Completely Disproves His Own Point
There is, however, a deeper, more fundamental problem with Rabbi Mizrachi's argument. He attempts to prove that the Torah (and by extension, the Oral Torah) is Divine because it's an error-free document and contains information that only a Divine Being could have possessed. However, by allowing supporting proof from the Gemara and the Zohar, he also leaves them open to refutation. In other words, if you're going to claim that the Pentateuch is divine, then you can only find fault with items in the Pentateuch. But by stating that the Gemara and Zohar are also divine, Rabbi Mizrachi is asserting that they, too, are error-proof. He's also asserting that they, too, must be free of textual variations (since a divine document must have only one version). The fact of the matter is that there is no one today who will say that the Gemara doesn't have textual variations. So, according to Rabbi Mizrachi's definition, the Gemara is not Divine; and if the Gemara is not divine, then the religion it supports, Judaism, must be false.
Far More Harm Than Help
At the beginning of his speech, Rabbi Mizrachi states that over 100,000 people are religious today because of this lecture (whether delivered by him or someone else). All I can say is that I find that *extremely* hard to believe. I'm not the smartest guy in the world, and yet, I was able to pick apart most of his arguments pretty easily. If this is the "proof" of Judaism, I'm left to wonder if his lectures don't do far more harm to the kiruv movement than help.
The Wolf
Monday, November 17, 2008
Recommended Reading: The Institutionalization of Personal Choice
ProfK over at Conversations In Klal has an excellent post regarding the loss of individualism in the Orthodox Jewish community today. As she writes:
There is a push to institutionalize the practices of Klal down to the smallest item, such that personal choice is being pushed out of existence. There have been communal minhag changes that boggle the mind of anyone with even a modicum of common sense. And we are all at fault for letting this happen.
This is actually one of those things that I wish I'd written about, except that ProfK has done a far better job of it than I ever would have.
The Wolf
There is a push to institutionalize the practices of Klal down to the smallest item, such that personal choice is being pushed out of existence. There have been communal minhag changes that boggle the mind of anyone with even a modicum of common sense. And we are all at fault for letting this happen.
This is actually one of those things that I wish I'd written about, except that ProfK has done a far better job of it than I ever would have.
The Wolf
Friday, November 14, 2008
Photos: Hovering Bee
It's Friday again, and that means that it's time for another picture. This shot was taken in Hudson River Park this past August. I took a *lot* of shots and engaged in a lot of trial-and-error to get this shot.
Picture Details
Canon XSi, 100mm macro lens
f/2.8, 1/3200 sec
As always, comments, criticism and critiques are welcome and appreciated.
The Wolf
Previous Photos:
Sunflower Macro
Statue of Liberty
Trinity Church, September 11, 2008
Manhattan Tulips
Dragonfly
Picture Details
Canon XSi, 100mm macro lens
f/2.8, 1/3200 sec
The Wolf
Previous Photos:
Sunflower Macro
Statue of Liberty
Trinity Church, September 11, 2008
Manhattan Tulips
Dragonfly
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Evolution And Shoddy Logic
It seems that the Evolution/Creation debate has broken out in the YeshivaWorldNews coffeeroom. To his credit, the YW Editor has been putting up both pro- and anti-evolution posts.
One thing that often amuses me about arguments like this from the Creationist* side is the fact that the Creationists inevitably end up using shoddy logic to prove their point. I have long maintained that it would be much more logical for Creationists to simply ignore the evidence and state that they hold their position solely as a matter of faith rather than argue with the evolutionists on a scientific basis. By waging the battle on the "scientific turf," they open themselves up to arguments that simply do not work.
I had a good example of this in the YWN thread. A poster named Bogen came up with this gem:
Evolution is just a theory, not a fact. (And a false theory, at that.)
Past evidence for evolution has been overturned. In the past, major scientific revolutions have overturned theories that were at the time considered factual.
In the past there have been scientific hoaxes regarding evolution, such as the Piltdown Man forgery.
Pieces of "evidence" for evolution such as Ernst Haeckel's 19th-century embryo drawings, were not merely "scientific errors" but frauds; Biology textbooks have continued to reproduce such "evidence" long after it had been debunked.
Evolution is a pseudo-religion (evolution is based on faith, supporters of evolution revere Charles Darwin as a prophet, and supporters of evolution dogmatically reject alternative suggestions out-of-hand.)
Evolution is "unfalsifiable" (there is no tests that could be made that would demonstrate that the statement is false). Any "fact" can be "fitted" into the evolutionary framework. Past events of speciation are not observable and repeatable, and therefore evolution is not falsifiable. In 1976, Popper himself said that "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme".
I don't mean to pick on Bogen personally here. These arguments are typical of the ones that you find in the less-educated corner of the Creationist camp. And every one of these arguments utterly fails when it comes to disproving evolution (which was Bogen's goal):
Interestingly enough, I don't have a problem with a faith based argument, regardless of whether or not I can show it to be false. For example, a cornerstone of the Christian faith is the resurrection of Jesus. Now, I personally wasn't present and can't state for certain whether it happened or not. I don't have a problem with a Christian who maintains that it happened -- after all, I have no argument to counter it and say that it didn't happen. I don't even have a problem with a faith based argument that is counter to scientific evidence. For example, someone can maintain that the universe is only 5769 years old and that God rigged the evidence to make the world look older. Now, I personally don't agree with that statement, but if that's what you want to believe, then go ahead.
Shoddy logic, or outright false claims, on the other hand, is something that I feel the need to address. In other words, when Creationists claim that evolution didn't happen because they maintain it as an article of faith, then I won't argue. I may consider you wrong, but not foolish. On the other hand, when they use bad logic and false statements, then they are wrong, and possibly foolish or malicious.
The Wolf
Related Post: Exactly Whom Is Doing The Arguing?
Also, check out The Rebbetzin's Husband's post regarding Creationist arguments.
* When I say "Creationist" in this post, I'm specifically referring to the Young Earth Creationists who maintain that evolution did not/does not happen. I fully recognize that one can believe in both Creation by a Divine Power and evolution at the same time.
NB: I don't mean to be attacking Bogen here "behind his back." However, past experience has shown that whenever I link to (or even refer to) my blog, the YWN editor does not put up the post. So there really is no effective way for me to alert him to this post. If someone has a way of getting the message to him, I'd appreciate it.
One thing that often amuses me about arguments like this from the Creationist* side is the fact that the Creationists inevitably end up using shoddy logic to prove their point. I have long maintained that it would be much more logical for Creationists to simply ignore the evidence and state that they hold their position solely as a matter of faith rather than argue with the evolutionists on a scientific basis. By waging the battle on the "scientific turf," they open themselves up to arguments that simply do not work.
I had a good example of this in the YWN thread. A poster named Bogen came up with this gem:
Evolution is just a theory, not a fact. (And a false theory, at that.)
Past evidence for evolution has been overturned. In the past, major scientific revolutions have overturned theories that were at the time considered factual.
In the past there have been scientific hoaxes regarding evolution, such as the Piltdown Man forgery.
Pieces of "evidence" for evolution such as Ernst Haeckel's 19th-century embryo drawings, were not merely "scientific errors" but frauds; Biology textbooks have continued to reproduce such "evidence" long after it had been debunked.
Evolution is a pseudo-religion (evolution is based on faith, supporters of evolution revere Charles Darwin as a prophet, and supporters of evolution dogmatically reject alternative suggestions out-of-hand.)
Evolution is "unfalsifiable" (there is no tests that could be made that would demonstrate that the statement is false). Any "fact" can be "fitted" into the evolutionary framework. Past events of speciation are not observable and repeatable, and therefore evolution is not falsifiable. In 1976, Popper himself said that "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme".
I don't mean to pick on Bogen personally here. These arguments are typical of the ones that you find in the less-educated corner of the Creationist camp. And every one of these arguments utterly fails when it comes to disproving evolution (which was Bogen's goal):
- The fact that he mentions that evolution is "only a theory" shows that he does not understand just what a scientific theory is. Gravity, too, is a theory.
- The fact that " major scientific revolutions have overturned theories that were at the time considered factual," hardly proves that evolution is false. After all, at one time we had theories as to how diseases were transmitted. Now,we have the germ theory. The fact that an older theory was overturned does not invalidate the germ theory. Likewise, the fact that older evolutionary models were overturned does not invalidate newer models.
- The fact that frauds such as Piltdown Man and Haeckel's embryo drawings were perpetrated does not invalidate evolutionary theory. Fraud has existed in all branches of science at one time or another. The fact that the frauds were eventually discovered and discredited is a point *in favor* of the scientific method.
- The claims that evolution is a pseudo-religion, that Darwin is revered as a "prophet," that evolutionists dogmatically support *anything* (isn't that against the very idea of the scientific method?) and that evolution is unfalsifiable and has never been observed are simply false. A simple Google serach or common sense will show them to be outright false.
Interestingly enough, I don't have a problem with a faith based argument, regardless of whether or not I can show it to be false. For example, a cornerstone of the Christian faith is the resurrection of Jesus. Now, I personally wasn't present and can't state for certain whether it happened or not. I don't have a problem with a Christian who maintains that it happened -- after all, I have no argument to counter it and say that it didn't happen. I don't even have a problem with a faith based argument that is counter to scientific evidence. For example, someone can maintain that the universe is only 5769 years old and that God rigged the evidence to make the world look older. Now, I personally don't agree with that statement, but if that's what you want to believe, then go ahead.
Shoddy logic, or outright false claims, on the other hand, is something that I feel the need to address. In other words, when Creationists claim that evolution didn't happen because they maintain it as an article of faith, then I won't argue. I may consider you wrong, but not foolish. On the other hand, when they use bad logic and false statements, then they are wrong, and possibly foolish or malicious.
The Wolf
Related Post: Exactly Whom Is Doing The Arguing?
Also, check out The Rebbetzin's Husband's post regarding Creationist arguments.
* When I say "Creationist" in this post, I'm specifically referring to the Young Earth Creationists who maintain that evolution did not/does not happen. I fully recognize that one can believe in both Creation by a Divine Power and evolution at the same time.
NB: I don't mean to be attacking Bogen here "behind his back." However, past experience has shown that whenever I link to (or even refer to) my blog, the YWN editor does not put up the post. So there really is no effective way for me to alert him to this post. If someone has a way of getting the message to him, I'd appreciate it.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Ten Proofs That Moshiach Is Coming Next Year -- NOT!
I'm convinced that we need a Jewish version of Snopes. Snopes, for all those who are unaware, is a website that investigates urban legends and tries to determine the factuality of the legend. Sometimes the legend is verified, sometimes it's proven false and sometimes it is undetermined.
There has been an email going around, purporting to give ten proofs that Moshiach is coming this year. So, as a public service, here are the ten "proofs" and why they are not proofs at all.
1. Bircat HaHamah - The Blessing on the Sun - Once every 28 years
Since creation, there was only two times that the year we say Birkat HaHamah fell out on the 1st Day of Passover.
The first was the year Hashem redeemed Israel form Egypt.
The second was the year of Purim, when Hashem saved the Jews from the evil Haman, who wanted to kill and destroy all Jews.
This year Birkat HaHamah falls out on the 1st Day of Passover. (which will be the 3rd time in history)
When it was told to Hacham Ovadia Yosef, that this year Birkat HaHamah falls out on the 1st Day of Passover, he started crying like a baby.
Obviously the list writer never heard of the idea of putting your best material up front, since of the ten, this "proof" is, by far, the worst. The reason, very simply, is that it is flat out false.
The claim is made that Birkas HaChamah is said this year on the first day of Pesach. If so, then the writer obviously observes a different Pesach than the rest of us. I will be observing the first day of Pesach on a Thursday this year. I will be reciting Birkas HaChamah on the day before, on Wednesday. In fact, in our fixed calendar, Pesach can NEVER start on Wednesday, and so Birkas HaChamah can NEVER be said on the first day of Pesach. I'm sure the reason that Hacham Yosef started crying was because he realized that someone disturbed him about such nonsense without even bothering to check the calendar first.
It is possible, however, that the writer meant to say Erev Pesach. Birkas HaChamah *will* be recited on Erev Pesach this year. However, it is clearly not the first time since the miracle of Purim that this has happened. In fact, Birkas HaChamah was recited on Erev Pesach on April 8, 1925.
Lastly, assuming the traditional dating to be correct (and, assuming that Birkas HaChamah was always recited on a 28-year cycle), Birkas HaChamah was not recited at all in the years that we left Egypt or the year of the Purim miracle. You can verify this fairly easily by continually subtracting 28 from the current year (5769). You'll find that neither 2448 (the year of the Exodus) or 3404 (the year Haman was hung) appear on the list of years.
2. Chofetz Chaim in a Dream to His Student
Recently the Chofetz Chaim came to one of his last living students in a dream several times and said that Mashiach is born. When this was told to Rabbi Elya Svei, he said he knew about this for over ten years.
Many great rabbanim in the past (including some even greater than the Chofetz Chaim) predicted a date for Moshiach's arrival and were proven wrong. In addition, the claim seems to be somewhat contradictory. If the Chofetz Chaim came to a student in a dream recently, how did R. Svei know about it for the last ten years?
3. Rabbi Elya Svei Mashiach 2009, told to him from his Rebbe, Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman
In 2004 at a funeral of a Rebbe of Mirrer Yeshiva, Rabbi Elya Svei said that Mashiach is coming in 2009. He said its was told to him and calculated by his Rebbe, Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman, who was the top student of the Chofetz Chaim. Incidentally Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman wrote books and spoke about that the timing of Maschiach is co mparable to a pregnant lady in her 9th month, which at any moment can give birth. Rabbi Elchonon Wasserman was murdered in the Holocaust, over 70 years ago, so in his times if Mashiach was so close, how much more so in our times more than 70 years later.
This is not a proof for two reasons. Firstly, see above with regard to the prediction made by the Chofetz Chaim. IOW, just because a gadol predicts that Moshiach is going to come does not mean that he actually will. Secondly, does this story mean to imply that R. Svei held no hope whatsoever of Moshiach coming between 2004 and 2009? Somehow, I highly doubt that. Lastly, the last point made (the comparison to a pregnant lady) is still not a proof. After all, one could have made the same claim last year or the year before. Since it did not hold true then, there is no reason to hold it as an ironclad proof for this year as well.
4. The Collapse of the Stock Market, Wall Street, Financial Markets, Housing Markets, Mortgage Markets, Insurance Markets, Real Estate Markets
Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, AIG, Merill Lynch, Wachovia, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Washington Mutual, Goldman Sachs
And surely MORE to come.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average broke 8000 and dropped to a low of 7882
In what way is this a proof that Moshiach is coming in 2009? There have certainly been financial collapses before (including collapses of even greater magnitude) and Moshiach did not arrive then.
5. The Iran dictator (Yemah Shemo) declaring he wants to wipe Israel of the globe and definitely has Nuclear Weapons.
Since Hashem sent us a very good President George Bush, who is a true friend of Israel as well as shown that he want to eradicate terrorists, the Iranian Animal is petrified to start with Israel, but with this years election of a new President, who know what can happen.
Again, hardly a proof. This is hardly the first time that a power wanted to wipe Israel off the map. It's also not the first time that the Jewish State found itself in potentially life-threatening trouble. How does this prove that Moshiach is coming next year?
6. Barak Obama as President
Hes young and inexperienced as well as questionable loyalty and friendship to Israel.
With all that's going on with our economy and global ma rkets, in addition to Obama's liberal viewpoints it seams very dangerous to have him as a commander in chief.
Leaving the political swipes aside, so what? How does this prove Moshiach is coming next year?
7. Iceland & Greenland Ice Packs
Iceland and Greenland is mostly comprised of ice. Scientist discovered that due to Global Warming, the shrinking of the Ozone Layer and the change in weather patterns, the ice packs in these two countries are starting to melt. They predict that in 5 to 10 years it will fully melt and the water (melted ice) would be added to the worlds oceans. This extra water, would increase sea level around the globe by 20 feet.
Basically all homes, buildings etc, that are built on locations that are at sea level (which is a good portion society), will be under water. Hashem promised NEVER to bring a Mabul (flood) again. If this is set in motion to take place, then Mashiach, must come before this happens.
Iceland is mostly composed of ice??!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
But hey, let's give the person the benefit of the doubt and assume they meant to say Antarctica, and not Iceland. (Hey, it's easy to mix them up, they're only about 12,000 miles for each other, and one is a continent and the other is an island only slightly larger than Ireland.) In any event, even if the unthinkable happened and all the ice in Greenland and Antarctica melted and caused massive flooding, it would still only affect coastal areas. Kansas, for example, would still not be under water.
HKBH promised Noach that He would never cause a global flood that wiped out all life. There were no promises regarding local floods, even massive ones.
Lastly, is there any reason to assume that HKBH's promise is going to be null and void after Moshiach comes? In other words, the writer claims that Moshiach has to come soon because floods that are in violation of HKBH's oath are coming. However, the assumption here is that after Moshiach comes, HKBH's promise is to be rescinded. I'm not aware of any source for this.
8. Brisker Rav
The Brisker Rav said during the Holocaust, that within 70 years Mashiach will come. 2009 is the 70th year.
Actually, it's only the 70th year if you assume the Holocaust only occured in 1939. Many historians date the beginning of the Holocaust differently. In addition, it went on until 1945.
9. Rabbi Elya Ber Wachtfogel said this past Yom Kippur 2008, was the last Yom Kippur. Hes been telling everyone to do Teshuva before Mashiach comes.
Again, not a proof. See above regarding other predictions. In addition, R. Wachtfogel's statement is somewhat ambiguous. It does not clearly and unambiguously mean that Moshiach is coming in 2009.
10. Rav Chaim Kanievsky
Chazon Ish (his Grandfather) and Rav Shach (one of his Rabbi's) came to Rav Chaim Kanievsky in a dream and both told him to tell everyone to do Teshuva in order to get ready for Mashiach, whom is coming very soon.
Its time to do TESHUVA!!!!!
The Chofetz Chaim said that people whom are not worthy won't even realize that Mashiach is here and whats going on.
We MUST ALL to TEHSUVA and come close to Hashem.
Send this to all the Jews you know.
We need Mashiach desperately.
See above. In addition, R. Kanievsky is the nephew, not the grandson of the Chazon Ish.
Lest I be misunderstood, let me make it clear: I hope that Moshiach comes in 2009 (or, heck, even in 2008). I'd love for someone to come to me when we're all living in Israel next year and say to me "Boy, Wolf, you sure blew it with that post..." But from a strictly logical standpoint, these predictions and "proofs" are sorely lacking, and people who create them should realize how foolish they sound.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Yeshivos Have A Duty To Teach Secular Studies To Our Kids
Rabbi Horowitz has a new article in Mishpacha Magazine touting the value of secular education in our community. While most yeshivos in the United States offer a program of secular studies, the attitude in many of them is that secular studies are a waste of time and not important. The kids pick up on this idea to the extent that when the school administration pays lip service to the importance of secular studies, the kids know it's a joke and, for the most part, learn next to nothing over the course of twelve years. In many schools, I'm positive that yeshivos would completely abandon secular studies in a heartbeat if they could get away with it.
Of course, if secular studies were something that could be easily dispensed with in today's society, then it might not be such a tragedy.* However, in today's society, in order to make yourself attractive to employers, you simply have to have certain skills, chief among them being a decent command of the English language, mathematics and basic computer skills. If you do not have those basic skills, you are going to find your options on the job market are very limited. Limited job options lead to limited pay and a greater likelihood that even when you are fully employed, you may still find yourself near or below the poverty line. And while being near or below the poverty line is bad for anyone, for an Orthodox Jews, it's far worse -- just imagine trying to pay yeshiva tuition for multiple kids on a salary of under $30,000.**
A significant part of the problem, in my estimation, comes from the fact that work, itself, is discouraged and looked down upon. Who cares if basic skills are needed for the job market if you never intend on looking for a job to begin with? I've commented in the past on how the very idea of working for a living is denigrated in our yeshivos (sometimes to the point where working fathers are denigrated in front of their children). So, since working for a living is deemed "unworthy" for a ben torah and life skills such as English, math, etc. are needed only for that purpose, the kids very quickly get the idea that the English classes are unimportant.
On top of this, you have to add the fact that computer skills are needed in today's environment as well. However, the hysteria over the (very real) dangers of the internet have caused some schools to shy away from computer studies at all -- even in an off-line environment. I don't have any definite examples, but it would not surprise me to find schools that restrict comptuer use, even off-line, in people's homes. As a result, some kids may try to enter the workforce without the slightest idea of what a word processor or a spreadsheet is. In fact, Rabbi Horowitz makes that point in this article:
A close friend of mine owns a business in an area with a large charedi population and is always looking to provide avrechim with jobs. His ‘entrance exam’ is rather simple. He gives prospective applicants a pad and paper and asks them to write two paragraphs in English expressing the reasons they would like to land a job in his company, and then to turn on a computer and type those lines. His thinking is that if an applicant cannot perform those two tasks, they are useless to him in his business.
That's it. Turn on the computer and write two paragraphs in English about why you want the job. Lest you think that this is not a difficult task, Rabbi Horowitz tells us about the results:
Suffice it to say that this would probably be my last column in Mishpacha if I shared with you the percentage of applicants he turns away because they cannot do that.
Unfortunately, the "learning only" model of the Jewish community is on the verge of bursting. Thousands upon thousands of people are learning and not working, and the signs have been apparent for a while now that this is a situation that cannot be sustained indefinitely. At some point, many of those people currently sitting in kollel are going to have to go to work. The real tragedy isn't the fact that they have to go to work (although, from a religious point of view, that is bad). The real tragedy is that many people are being thrown into the job market with few or no marketable skills. They've been told by their yeshivos (either explicitly or implictly) that obtaining job skills is a waste of time, and now they are paying the price for listening to authority figures they trusted.
People need to understand that yeshivos today are not the same as they were back in the shtetl. Yeshivos today need to serve a dual purpose. The first and foremost purpose is to teach Torah and instill Torah values in our children.*** But the second purpose is to provide a basic secular education for our children, to enable them to be able to enter the job market or puruse higher education when and if they choose (or are forced) to do so. If a yeshiva does not provide this basic education (and make sure that the students are sufficiently motivated to acquire these skills) then they are condemning the vast majority of them to a lifetime of poverty and struggle. And that, in my estimation, is probably a greater spiritual danger to them than anything they might encounter in a book, magazine, blog or college course.
The Wolf
* I, personally, believe that secular knowledge does has value in and of itself, but that can certainly be put up for debate.
** Poverty level for a family of 6 in 2008 is $28,400 in the contiguous 48 states.
*** When we went looking for an elementary school for Walter many years ago, there was one school that seemed good and seemed to fit us in a number of areas. However, for the younger grades, they had secular studies in the morning and Judaic studies in the afternoon. It was purely a scheduling matter, not a statement on the relative importance of the subjects. Nonetheless, we felt that it was important that Walter understand that Judaic studies were more important, and so we did not send him to that school for fear that the schedule would inadvertently send him the wrong message.
Of course, if secular studies were something that could be easily dispensed with in today's society, then it might not be such a tragedy.* However, in today's society, in order to make yourself attractive to employers, you simply have to have certain skills, chief among them being a decent command of the English language, mathematics and basic computer skills. If you do not have those basic skills, you are going to find your options on the job market are very limited. Limited job options lead to limited pay and a greater likelihood that even when you are fully employed, you may still find yourself near or below the poverty line. And while being near or below the poverty line is bad for anyone, for an Orthodox Jews, it's far worse -- just imagine trying to pay yeshiva tuition for multiple kids on a salary of under $30,000.**
A significant part of the problem, in my estimation, comes from the fact that work, itself, is discouraged and looked down upon. Who cares if basic skills are needed for the job market if you never intend on looking for a job to begin with? I've commented in the past on how the very idea of working for a living is denigrated in our yeshivos (sometimes to the point where working fathers are denigrated in front of their children). So, since working for a living is deemed "unworthy" for a ben torah and life skills such as English, math, etc. are needed only for that purpose, the kids very quickly get the idea that the English classes are unimportant.
On top of this, you have to add the fact that computer skills are needed in today's environment as well. However, the hysteria over the (very real) dangers of the internet have caused some schools to shy away from computer studies at all -- even in an off-line environment. I don't have any definite examples, but it would not surprise me to find schools that restrict comptuer use, even off-line, in people's homes. As a result, some kids may try to enter the workforce without the slightest idea of what a word processor or a spreadsheet is. In fact, Rabbi Horowitz makes that point in this article:
A close friend of mine owns a business in an area with a large charedi population and is always looking to provide avrechim with jobs. His ‘entrance exam’ is rather simple. He gives prospective applicants a pad and paper and asks them to write two paragraphs in English expressing the reasons they would like to land a job in his company, and then to turn on a computer and type those lines. His thinking is that if an applicant cannot perform those two tasks, they are useless to him in his business.
That's it. Turn on the computer and write two paragraphs in English about why you want the job. Lest you think that this is not a difficult task, Rabbi Horowitz tells us about the results:
Suffice it to say that this would probably be my last column in Mishpacha if I shared with you the percentage of applicants he turns away because they cannot do that.
Unfortunately, the "learning only" model of the Jewish community is on the verge of bursting. Thousands upon thousands of people are learning and not working, and the signs have been apparent for a while now that this is a situation that cannot be sustained indefinitely. At some point, many of those people currently sitting in kollel are going to have to go to work. The real tragedy isn't the fact that they have to go to work (although, from a religious point of view, that is bad). The real tragedy is that many people are being thrown into the job market with few or no marketable skills. They've been told by their yeshivos (either explicitly or implictly) that obtaining job skills is a waste of time, and now they are paying the price for listening to authority figures they trusted.
People need to understand that yeshivos today are not the same as they were back in the shtetl. Yeshivos today need to serve a dual purpose. The first and foremost purpose is to teach Torah and instill Torah values in our children.*** But the second purpose is to provide a basic secular education for our children, to enable them to be able to enter the job market or puruse higher education when and if they choose (or are forced) to do so. If a yeshiva does not provide this basic education (and make sure that the students are sufficiently motivated to acquire these skills) then they are condemning the vast majority of them to a lifetime of poverty and struggle. And that, in my estimation, is probably a greater spiritual danger to them than anything they might encounter in a book, magazine, blog or college course.
The Wolf
* I, personally, believe that secular knowledge does has value in and of itself, but that can certainly be put up for debate.
** Poverty level for a family of 6 in 2008 is $28,400 in the contiguous 48 states.
*** When we went looking for an elementary school for Walter many years ago, there was one school that seemed good and seemed to fit us in a number of areas. However, for the younger grades, they had secular studies in the morning and Judaic studies in the afternoon. It was purely a scheduling matter, not a statement on the relative importance of the subjects. Nonetheless, we felt that it was important that Walter understand that Judaic studies were more important, and so we did not send him to that school for fear that the schedule would inadvertently send him the wrong message.
Monday, November 10, 2008
God's Promises -- Are They Always Kept?
There is a very famous Midrash on this week's parsha. When Yishmael and Hagar are dismissed from Avraham's house, they end up in the wilderness where the boy begins to die of thirst. As God was preparing to show Hagar where the well was (to save Yishmael's life), the angles angels protested and petitioned God to let Yishmael die. They said that in the future, the descendants of Yishmael will cause many Jews to die of thirst and, to prevent this from happening, God should let Yishmael die now. God, however, responds by saying that He is judging Yishamel as is he is now (ba'asher hu shom) and since, at the present moment, he is not deservant of death, he is going to be saved.
It's a very nice Midrash, one that gives us some insight into how God administers Divine Justice. However, I had a very simple question. How could theangles angels petition God to let Yishmael die? Didn't God explicitly promise both Avraham and Hagar that Yishmael would grow up to found a new nation? Wouldn't God's promise to Avraham and Hagar preempt any possibility of listening to an angelic plea to let Yishmael die?
I spoke about with with a fellow congregant this weekend. He informed me of a Tzlach (which I did not see inside) which discusses how God's promise can be broken if it's for the benefit of the k'lal.
I'm not so sure that I really agree with that reasoning. There is a gemara (the exact location of which escapes me at the moment) which states that when God makes a conditional positive promise, the promise is always kept, even when the condition is not kept. It is logical to state, that if God always keeps a promise, even when He has a "legal out" (i.e. when the condition is not kept), could it not be said that He always keeps a positive promise when it is absolute and unconditional and therefore does not have a "legal out?"
I explained this to my friend on Shabbos, and gave him an example of his reasoning taken to the ultimate degree. If you are going to say that even God's absolute promises are subject to revocation "for the good of the K'lal), then suppose, under some bizzarre set of circumstances, it's beneficial for the K'lal that God should revoke His promise to Noach. Does that mean that He will then flood the world again despite His promise? That just does not sound right to me.
So, going with the assumption that God's positive promises are always kept (especially when given unconditionally), why did theangles angels even bother arguing? Furthermore, why did God give the argument of ba'asher hu shom? Why not simply state that He was bound by His promises to Avraham and Hagar?
The Wolf
It's a very nice Midrash, one that gives us some insight into how God administers Divine Justice. However, I had a very simple question. How could the
I spoke about with with a fellow congregant this weekend. He informed me of a Tzlach (which I did not see inside) which discusses how God's promise can be broken if it's for the benefit of the k'lal.
I'm not so sure that I really agree with that reasoning. There is a gemara (the exact location of which escapes me at the moment) which states that when God makes a conditional positive promise, the promise is always kept, even when the condition is not kept. It is logical to state, that if God always keeps a promise, even when He has a "legal out" (i.e. when the condition is not kept), could it not be said that He always keeps a positive promise when it is absolute and unconditional and therefore does not have a "legal out?"
I explained this to my friend on Shabbos, and gave him an example of his reasoning taken to the ultimate degree. If you are going to say that even God's absolute promises are subject to revocation "for the good of the K'lal), then suppose, under some bizzarre set of circumstances, it's beneficial for the K'lal that God should revoke His promise to Noach. Does that mean that He will then flood the world again despite His promise? That just does not sound right to me.
So, going with the assumption that God's positive promises are always kept (especially when given unconditionally), why did the
The Wolf
Friday, November 07, 2008
Friday Is Picture Day At WolfishMusings!!
One area of photography that I love is macro photography. Pictures of flowers and buildings are nice and well, but when you can get thisclose to your subject and present it in a new light, you can really achieve something special (if you do it right, of course). One of the first lenses that I bought for my new camera was a macro lens.
Here's a picture I took of a sunflower about a year and a half ago.
As always, any comments, criticisms and critiques are welcomed and appreciated.
The Wolf
Previous Photos:
Statue of Liberty
Trinity Church, September 11, 2008
Manhattan Tulips
Dragonfly
Here's a picture I took of a sunflower about a year and a half ago.
Taken with a Canon S3IS
As always, any comments, criticisms and critiques are welcomed and appreciated.
The Wolf
Previous Photos:
Statue of Liberty
Trinity Church, September 11, 2008
Manhattan Tulips
Dragonfly
Where Did Personal Integrity Go?
E-Kvetcher has a post today about frum people in Chicago who voted twice for McCain in the recent presidential election -- once under their Hebrew name and once under their legal (English) name. I don't know (and E-Kvetcher doesn't tell us) whether this was racially motivated or whether they simply preferred McCain's policies. In any event, it doesn't really matter, I suppose.
What I find interesting is how we pay a lot of lip service to the idea of honesty in all our dealings -- even with non-Jews, and yet we simply fail miserably at following through in real life. There is a story often told about a Jew who consistently returned a few cents that he regularly received in excess change to a non-Jew postal clerk. Years later that very same non-Jew, impressed with the honesty and piety of the Jew, goes on to save him and other Jews from the Nazis. Other vesions of the story exist (with a shopkeep, or with the Czar instead of the Nazis, but they're all pretty much the same story). Who among us hasn't heard a story of this type? I know I've heard it countless times -- and it's a good story. The point being made is that if you conduct yourself with honesty, and treat people fairly, they will respect you and see you (and possibly your community) as people to be treated fairly.
Sadly, this lesson has been lost on today's generation. Today's generation looks at the story and misses the point entirely. Instead of seeing the message of "be honest, you never know what the consequences are," the message has become "be honest when it only costs you a few cents. A few cents may save you in the future." But when it comes to larger issues, honesty falls by the wayside.
Now, I don't want to suggest that this is a simply a frum problem -- it's not. There are plenty of people around the world of all stripes who are openly dishonest; and, as a firm believer in karma (aka Divine Justice) I beleive that they will eventually have to answer for it. But we tend to pay a great amount of lip service to the idea of honesty. We say that the seal of HKBH is truth. We're taught to be scrupulously honest -- even with non-Jews. And yet, time and again, we see examples where we fail to live up to the very ideals we profess to hold as the highest values.
I'm not suggesting that we should be perfect. I understand that Jews, like everyone else, are only human. We're all subject to temptations and failings. We all (myself included) find that sometimes we fall short of the mark. But that's fine -- as I said, we're human and not meant to be perfect. However, when it comes to the measure of a person's character, I sometimes feel that what's more important is the subsequent actions that a person takes. If a person steals someting, are they ashamed of the fact that they stole? Are they willing to make restitution (even secretly) and resolve to sin no more? Or are they proud of the fact that they got away with it? In other words, are they essentially honest people who simply slipped up once and gave in to temptation, or are they simply dishonest people?
Much of our halachic system is built on the idea of trust and personal integrity. How do I know that the food Eeees prepares for my dinner is kosher? Because I trust her. How do I know when I go to a restaurant or somone's home that they food they serve is kosher? Trust. I rely on thier personal honesty. How do I know my tefillin and mezzuos are written in order (if they are written out of order, they are invalid -- and this is not something that can be caught on inspection)? Again, we rely on the honesty of the sofer. Heck, how did we know that the Kohen Gadol in the Temple performed the ketores service in the proper way? Sure, he was made to swear that he'd do it the right way, but once he swore, we relied on his honesty that he would carry out his oath. In short, much of our halachic system is built on the idea of personal honesty. To see it so casually battered in public speaks volumes, I believe, about how we've lost our way and how we've lost sight of what truly is one of the major underpinnings of our religion.
The Wolf
(EDIT: I suppose I was unclear in the post. I didn't mean to suggest that there is rampant election fraud in Chicago [or anywhere else]. The post wasn't really about the election, but the open dishonesty in general [collecting sales tax comes to mind] that goes on in our community. The election fraud is just an example. My apologies for all those who were misled by my post.)
What I find interesting is how we pay a lot of lip service to the idea of honesty in all our dealings -- even with non-Jews, and yet we simply fail miserably at following through in real life. There is a story often told about a Jew who consistently returned a few cents that he regularly received in excess change to a non-Jew postal clerk. Years later that very same non-Jew, impressed with the honesty and piety of the Jew, goes on to save him and other Jews from the Nazis. Other vesions of the story exist (with a shopkeep, or with the Czar instead of the Nazis, but they're all pretty much the same story). Who among us hasn't heard a story of this type? I know I've heard it countless times -- and it's a good story. The point being made is that if you conduct yourself with honesty, and treat people fairly, they will respect you and see you (and possibly your community) as people to be treated fairly.
Sadly, this lesson has been lost on today's generation. Today's generation looks at the story and misses the point entirely. Instead of seeing the message of "be honest, you never know what the consequences are," the message has become "be honest when it only costs you a few cents. A few cents may save you in the future." But when it comes to larger issues, honesty falls by the wayside.
Now, I don't want to suggest that this is a simply a frum problem -- it's not. There are plenty of people around the world of all stripes who are openly dishonest; and, as a firm believer in karma (aka Divine Justice) I beleive that they will eventually have to answer for it. But we tend to pay a great amount of lip service to the idea of honesty. We say that the seal of HKBH is truth. We're taught to be scrupulously honest -- even with non-Jews. And yet, time and again, we see examples where we fail to live up to the very ideals we profess to hold as the highest values.
I'm not suggesting that we should be perfect. I understand that Jews, like everyone else, are only human. We're all subject to temptations and failings. We all (myself included) find that sometimes we fall short of the mark. But that's fine -- as I said, we're human and not meant to be perfect. However, when it comes to the measure of a person's character, I sometimes feel that what's more important is the subsequent actions that a person takes. If a person steals someting, are they ashamed of the fact that they stole? Are they willing to make restitution (even secretly) and resolve to sin no more? Or are they proud of the fact that they got away with it? In other words, are they essentially honest people who simply slipped up once and gave in to temptation, or are they simply dishonest people?
Much of our halachic system is built on the idea of trust and personal integrity. How do I know that the food Eeees prepares for my dinner is kosher? Because I trust her. How do I know when I go to a restaurant or somone's home that they food they serve is kosher? Trust. I rely on thier personal honesty. How do I know my tefillin and mezzuos are written in order (if they are written out of order, they are invalid -- and this is not something that can be caught on inspection)? Again, we rely on the honesty of the sofer. Heck, how did we know that the Kohen Gadol in the Temple performed the ketores service in the proper way? Sure, he was made to swear that he'd do it the right way, but once he swore, we relied on his honesty that he would carry out his oath. In short, much of our halachic system is built on the idea of personal honesty. To see it so casually battered in public speaks volumes, I believe, about how we've lost our way and how we've lost sight of what truly is one of the major underpinnings of our religion.
The Wolf
(EDIT: I suppose I was unclear in the post. I didn't mean to suggest that there is rampant election fraud in Chicago [or anywhere else]. The post wasn't really about the election, but the open dishonesty in general [collecting sales tax comes to mind] that goes on in our community. The election fraud is just an example. My apologies for all those who were misled by my post.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)