The Great Partnership: Science, Religion, and the Search for Meaning -- by Jonathan Sacks
Book Summary:
***National Jewish Book Awards 2012, Finalist*** Dorot Foundation Award for Modern Jewish Thought and Experience
An impassioned, erudite, thoroughly researched, and beautifully reasoned book from one of the most admired religious thinkers of our time that argues not only that science and religion are compatible, but that they complement each otherand that the world needs both.
Atheism deserves better than the new atheists, states Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, whose methodology consists of criticizing religion without understanding it, quoting texts without contexts, taking exceptions as the rule, confusing folk belief with reflective theology, abusing, mocking, ridiculing, caricaturing, and demonizing religious faith and holding it responsible for the great crimes against humanity. Religion has done harm; I acknowledge that. But the cure for bad religion is good religion, not no religion, just as the cure for bad science is good science, not the abandonment of science.
Rabbi Sackss counterargument is that religion and science are the two essential perspectives that allow us to see the universe in its three-dimensional depth. Science teaches us where we come from. Religion explains to us why we are here. Science is the search for explanation. Religion is the search for meaning. We need scientific explanation to understand nature. We need meaning to understand human behavior. There have been times when religion tried to dominate science. And there have been times, including our own, when it is believed that we can learn all we need to know about meaning and relationships through biochemistry, neuroscience, and evolutionary psychology. In this fascinating look at the interdependence of religion and science, Rabbi Sacks explains why both views are tragically wrong.
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Partnership-Science-Religion-Meaning/dp/0805243011/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1385052910&sr=1-1&keywords=rabbi+sacks
Tags
Who is online
70 visitors
I don't even know where to begin in describing how absurd this notion is. We live in world with thousands of religions competing for membership. In this country, hundreds (perhaps thousands) of religions all fall under the umbrella of Christianity - which clearly demonstrates how disorganized and rogue we are about how we perceive the ambiguous Christian doctrine. The fact is, Jesus Christ, if he existed at all, is quite clearly described as a socialist. The very word "socialism" is treated like a disease here, and there is literally almost nobody in this country that would live up to the standards of what Christ wanted, and therefore inherit the "kingdom of heaven." Politicians go on and on pandering to Christianity, and claiming to be Christian, but not a single one of them ever considers what they would do if they werein the shoes of the wealthy man who Jesus supposedly told to sell all of his possessions in order to please God. Christiansclaim to accept theseconcepts in scripture as absolute truth, but would never in their life consider living up to them. They refuse to admit that they are just as human as a nonbeliever, and in many cases they are far less compassionate.
There is nothing about religion that could be construed as helpful in understanding anything about the world we live in. It that were the case, there wouldn't be so many of them to begin with. Scientific knowledgeunites, religion divides. If there were one or two religions that the world's inhabitants devoted themselves to, then we might be able to force a relationship between religion and science. In my experience, the closest religion ever gets to understanding the world around us, is when it alludes to how mysterious our existence is. With the exception of Hinduism and Sufism, religions are far more likely to claim they have the answers than to admit that the answers are unknowable.
If ever a seed described a respondent, this is it about you:
What the rabbi wrote refers to all religions and he does not demand uniformity. It is about giving respect6 to the religious person's views even if you are an atheist. A Christian believes in Jesus and I don't. But we both follow the Noahite laws of avoiding murder, theft, blasphemy, idolatry, sexual immorality, eating the flesh of a living animal and finally setting up a system of justice.
Behavior is more important than theology.
Guess what - this atheist follows secular laws, common sense, and the Golden Rule when it comes to murder, theft and rape, and for good measure I also do something that biblical scripture does not even address - I respect and nurture my children, and all children. Christians and Jews think that omitting any statement about nurturing your children from the most important set of commandments straight from the supposed hand of God itself,is somehowappropriate. Instead, that list made room for rules to honor the insanely jealous needs of a god, and somehow finds it more important to not be envious of your neighbor's possessions than to notabuse a child.
If you need religious dogma to inform you that those things are indeed important factors in being virtuous human and a good citizen, then you are the type of human thatthe secular world should be afraid of. You let your religion inform your opinions on those around you, whereas I let sound judgment of the individual dictate their goodness. You vilify homosexuals and actively discriminate against them, and I welcome them with humanistic intentions.
You two should get a room !
Science has an epistemological model of reductionism. That worlds very well in understanding and harnessing the interrelationships of the physical world. It is structurallyimpotent regardingmetaphysical matters, such as value theory. Even so,its underpinnings rest on assumptions which cannot be reduced to, or inter-subjectively verified by the use of the scientific method.
The Vienna Circle (Der Viener Kries), and later "Language Truth and Logic" by A.J. Ayer both made thisfundamental mistake. Use of the protocol sentence to determine truth in all its expressions rests on a metaphysicalformulation. Both base their approach on it. Either can prove it using their approach. You also cannot duplicate on an inter-subjective basis consistently the temporal part of the protocol sentence. Both are rookie errors.
Alfred North Whitehead, in hisseminal work "Religion in the Making" and Michael Polyani in his "The Great Chain of Being" point out that the most interesting thing about any system or method of thought is the assumptions upon which it rests, and where it works best among competing approaches. They bothmake a valid point.
Unless one assumes that which they intend to prove, which is circular reasoning, the pragmatic valueof results produced remains thebest currently available criterion for the selection of an epistemological and ontological way to select what to use in which context of human search for, understanding of, andapplication of truth and meaning. Rabbi Sacks is on the right path here.
The search for knowledge, meaning and perspective isn't an either or between religion and science. And the options are not limited solely to those two selections. There are non scientific and non religious approaches which also bear fruit. Gold is whereyou find it.
A joyous and meaningful Thanksgiving to those who celebrate it.
Enoch.
Interesting that you follow the golden rule without acknowledging that it was originally a religious rule, a religious contribution to civilization,stated by Hillel and repeated by Jesus.
How is treating children with kindness different from treating adults the same way? Where did you get the idea that Scripture does not address nurturing of children?
The most effective way to nurture children is toprovide them moral education and Scripture is replete with guidance for this.
Before Scripture child sacrifice was endemic. The Torah railed against it and gives it as one of the reasons that the seven nations were vomited out of the land. Not because of their creed didthe Lordjudge them but by their deeds. They were cruel and merciless. It is true that they worshipped other gods, but the clincher was that they burned their children in fires to their gods (Deut. 12:31).
Short of murder, the Torah also has commandments preventing sexual abuse of children, also common in pagan societies.
Incidentally, another of the reasons given here for vomiting out the nations was their practice of homosexuality. (Lev. 18:22)
I could go on and on but, again, you are illustrating what the seed says:
BTW, "halleluyah" means "Praise God." You are using that screen name deceptively; likely on purpose.
You should be ashamed of yourself.
Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik ztl, in his book, "The Halakhic Mind" attempts to reconcile the scientific and religious domains while recognizing that such reconciliation must ultimately be non-scientific.
"Every metaphysical quest for reality is driven by the urge for finality and totality which neither the microscope or telescope can reveal. Thus the absolute perspective of ontology must remain intrinsically non-scientific. In addition, metaphysics can never be satisfied with merely theoretical considerations, however absolute their character, but must weave axiological threads into its philosophic fabric, whereas science is indifferent to value judgments and ethical norms... As soon as the philosopher turns to ends and designs in the universe, he severs all ties with the scientific method of interpretation and embraces methodological pluralism." (Ch. 1)
Soloveitchik further observes that, even within science alone, there are differences in the approach to certain phenomena; that system pluralism supplants monism. The most famous such system is, of course, the reconciliation of wave and quantum theories, though he provides several other examples.(Len: Today the unresolved relationship between gravity and quantum theory occupies physicists.)
Quoting Planck, "Theoretical physics does not consider individual measurement as an event... By an event physics means a certain merely intellectual process. It substitutes a new world in place of that given us by the senses or by the measuring instruments... The other world is the so-called physical world-image; it is merely an intellectual structure. To a certain extent it is arbitrary... A superficial consideration shows how wide is the distance between the world image and the sense world of quantum physics and, how much more difficult it is, in quantum physics, to translate an event from the world image into the sense world and vice-versa." (Philosophy of Physics, pp. 53-66)
Soloveitchik: "Kant echoed Maimonides in his observation that, in thinking we use, with a certain right, concepts to which there is no access from the material of sensory experience, if the situation is viewed from a logical point of view. As a matter of fact I am convinced that even much more is to be asserted: the concepts that arise in our thought and our linguistic expressions are all -- when viewed logically -- the free creations of thought that cannot inductively be gained from sense experiences. This is not so easily noticed because we have the habit of combining certain concepts and conceptual relations (propositions) so definitely with certain sense experiences that we do not become conscious of the gulf, logically unbridgeable, that separates the world of sensory experiences from the world of concepts and propositions."
Soon I will celebrate Thanksgiving and Hanukah on the same day. It will not happen again for about 70,000 years. Happy Thanksgiving.
From Robert Jastrow's book, God and the Astronomers:
"... scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe, and any event can be explained in a natural way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its cause; there is no First Cause ... This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. As usual, when faced with trauma, the mind reacts by ignoring the implications -- in science this is known as "refusing to speculate" -- or trivializing the origin of the world by calling it the Big Bang as if the Universe were a firecracker.
"Now we would like to pursue that inquiry farther back in time, but the barrier to further progress seems insurmountable ... for the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."
Dear Friend Len: Gobble Tov this Thanksgivukah.
Enoch.
Ihave read enough of your messages to recognize your slavery to political far-left dogma.
You think dogma is bad but it depends on the dogma. Religious dogma is more moral and humanistic than atheistic leftist dogma.
The latterpromotes homosexuality, abortion, even late-term abortion,as birth control,and free contraceptives to high-schoolers, paid for by a socialistic government that confiscates hard-earned income and promotes laziness.
Abortion is the contemporary replacement for the child sacrifice of ancient time.
The Bible is history as well as dogma. It teaches that nations in which the people practiced child sacrifice, incest, homosexuality, adultery and bestiality went down the tubes. Liberal dogma tolerates and accepts these practices as "humanistic."
Religion civilized the world and liberal socialist dogmais un-civilizing it.
Interesting that you thinkthat a concept echoed by virtually every religion ever created by man is somehow more important once it is regurgitated by Jesus - a guy you think to be of no more importance than any other biblical character. Equally interesting that you don't recognize that the origins of the statement are Confucian, and that the concept of doing unto others as you would want them to do to you is so intrinsically obvious that it need not be attributed to anyone at all. That's the whole point - the only person that needs to repeat this to another is a parent totheir young child - absolutely no religion required whatsoever.
Of the 10 imperative commandments, none addresses the topic of child abuse, but one is specifically reserved for respecting your parents. In the world today, how common is it for a parent to abuse a child? It happens all the time, andthese commandments indicates that the parent is to be respected no matter how poorly they treat their child.Instead of ensuringa clear understanding that children are to be nurtured with a commandment addressing this concern, other commandments areissued that are arguably less critical to the proper functioning of civilization. Do not covet your neighbor's stuff, and do not carve an image of god, and several other secularly worthless suggestions aremore important than do no neglect or abuse your child.
Whatif thefather's instruction is to go prostitute yourself to pay his debts? Look at every one of the quotes you listed, and tell me wherethe nurturing of childrenis specifically mentioned. It isn't - and you know it. "Do not throw your child in a fire" is not an endorsement for nurturing. No man shall come near to any of his close relatives, to uncover [their] nakedness. Seriously? It can't specifically emphasize the vulnerability of a child, and has to resort to "relatives"?
It's amazing, according to scripture, God used to speak toour primitiveancestors,but of courseitdoesn't do thatanymore. Of those infrequent times in ancient history when it did speak, it would say something as vile as "to demonstrate your love for me, kill your child." When it was unhappy with the actions of those humans that actually knew it existed, and those humansknew of thespecific rules thatthey weren't adhering to, it drowned the entire planet. How many innocent children throughout the world were there that were murdered by that act, not the mention innocent people who had never even heard of those rules?
And how about divorce? A sin that carries equal weight according to your doctrine, is waived off as entirely meaningless by Christians and Jews in comparison with their fetish for vilifying homosexuality. How much damage has been done in society by idiot parents who kick their children out of the home for admission of being gay? One more example of how your religion denies the nurturing of children, and how religioncan bea negative component to a healthy functioning society. I have a gay step son, and there isn't a single family member in the entire extended family who doesn't welcome him and his partner in the same manner as they would ifthey were astraight couple. If any one of us were to suddenly adopt your way of thinking, it would clearly cause the family to start disintegrating. This demonstrates how your religion breeds hate and societal dysfunction.
Not in the least! If there is a god, and that god is just, it would prefer my way thinking to yours eight days a week.
I thought it was "Hangiving:-)"
And I have stated many times that it is not my intention to convert the world to atheism. My intention is to live and let live, by keeping religious idealism out of secular government. The premise of this article is that "what the world really needs is more religion", which is nauseatingly inaccurate. Look at what religions have done to the societies governed by them. One thing that the world needs, is exactly what the world is experiencing right now - a rise in rational thinking and rejection of organized religion.
Lol - probably the most twisted thing I have ever read from you - liberal thinking tolerates and accepts incest, adultery, bestiality, and child sacrifice. Thankfully, you type is naturally dying off.
A Turkey Latke by any other name would smell as sweet. Smiles.
E.
When all else fails ... Goddidit.Fabulous answer. Never mind the question of how god got here, and why it doesn't show even the slightest allusions that it exists. Just accept that it is real, and that it is very concerned about your sex life.
"Do not throw your child in a fire" is not an endorsement for nurturing. No man shall come near to any of his close relatives, to uncover [their] nakedness. Seriously? It can't specifically emphasize the vulnerability of a child, and has to resort to "relatives"?
I assumed, based on your pontification, that you had at least a cursory, rudimentary familiarity with the Bible. I was wrong. Is should be obvious to anyone but a fool that there are positive ways to nurture and negative ways to do the opposite. My statement about close relatives was my summary of many verses. Let me spell those applying to children out for you:
People routinely threw children into fire while today they abort them. But that is not all. Infanticide has been played down despite hundreds of references by ancient writers that it was an accepted everyday occurrence. Children were thrown into rivers, flung into dung heaps and cess trenches, starved to death, and exposed in every hill and roadside, a prey for birds, food for wild beasts to rend. (Euripides, Ion) Even Aristotle argued in Politics that killing imperfect children was essential to functioning of society and to limit population. Girls, especially, were murdered. Forbidding abusive acts is tantamount to nurturing as much as feeding, hugging and educating. Is it necessary to command feeding and hugging? The Bible teaches that all humanity is created in Gods image; each person has infinite value and must be safeguarded and protected.
As far as the golden rule is concerned, the original version is from the Bible itself:
Confucius lived about 700 years later, in the sixth century BCE. I mention Jesus to emphasize unity of religions on this; religions you demean even as you agree on their important teaching adopted by modern civilizations. Lots of religious tenets, dogma to some, have been so adopted.
The Congressional Quarterly compared school problems of 1940 with those today. In 1940 top problems were running in the halls, chewing gum, talking in class, improper clothing, littering and smoking. Today they are pregnancy, venereal disease, drug abuse, suicide, rape, assault, burglary, arson, murder and gang warfare. What has changed besides decline of religion? Some nurturing!!
Divorce is not a sin. Sometimes it is necessary and the Bible provides for it.
We do not hate homosexuals. You must love your child. But nor should we assure them that it is just as valid a lifestyle as heterosexuality.
Laugh all you like; that is approved. But I am not making it up.
Philosophy and bioethics prof. Peter Singer of Princeton has approved both bestiality and incest.
You can find web sites that facilitate adultery.
I was talking specifically about the 10 commandments, and I have no interest in parsing through the rest of scriptural garbage. So to clarify,is ityour opinion that the omission of any reference to the importance of being a good parent in the ten commandments, while making room for commandmentsregarding idolatry and envy, and a commandment to unilaterally and unquestionably obey parental figures, somehow demonstrates rational and well rounded foundational law for a functioning society? Don't answer with bible quotes, answer with your instincts. Our children are our future, but your god seems to think that the upbringing of a child is less important than being jealous of your neighbor's donkey, as demonstrated with the list of priorities said to be written by its own hand.
You seriously don't see any difference between birthing a child and throwing it into a fire, versus a medically induced abortion? Not surprising, since you failed to acknowledge the statements I made about your god's callous indifference to human life to begin with, as described in your doctrine. How typical, to pick and choose what parts of the bible to respect and what parts to disregard. When it comes to human life,your god iswritten in Genesis to havebreathed into his nostrils the breath of life and it was then that the man became a living being. Althoughthe man was fully formed by God in all respects, he was not a living being until after taking his first breath - and yet you insist on calling even a zygote a human life. I'm not personally a fan of abortion, but I'm far less a fan of dictating a woman's right to make a decision about her own body. But then again, since when has religion ever respected a woman?
This is not about feeding and hugging - there is a unique vulnerability to the sensibilities of a child. In addition to the bible not even acknowledging this, and the potential for abusing it, it doubles down and commands that child to basically do whatever their parent tells them to do. This is not about feeding and hugging, it's about drilling into a parent's head that those vulnerabilities are notto be taken advantage of or ignored. It's a good thing that human nature generally tends towards the nurturing of children, since your absent minded, divinely inspireddoctrine has chosen to remind us not to use its name in vein rather than to protect and nurture our children. What a crock of crap.
Oh really?As in50% of all marriages in the US, and people getting divorced multiple times throughout their lifetime? Don't you think that that is a wee bit excessive? If you're going to bash homosexuality based on your scriptures, then it is completely disingenuous to not make a spectacle about the obscenely high divorce rate among Americans, including your faithful. But we never hear that, do we? Why? Because unlike homosexuality, divorce is not an instinctual behavior, it is a measure employed by half of all married people to get out of a situation that makes them unhappy. You homophobes think nothing of the unhappiness of a person struggling against their natural, instinctual sexual tendencies, but when it comes to your own unhappiness you will get divorced or have an affair at the drop of a hat. Youinspire political leaders who will decry homosexuality while simultaneously abandoning their own spouses and families to suit their own selfish happiness.
You are insane. Go to a humanist convention some time and ask every single member what their stance is on bestiality and incest. You will likely be asked to leave, since there is no connection whatsoever between the average liberal and such sickening behavior. As far as Ashley Madison goes, do you really think that every member is not religious? I would venture to bet that a cross section of their membership would be identical to a random cross section of society, relative to religiosity. You religious types like to frequently remind us atheists how big a part of society you god believers represent. For the record, I find their service to be abhorrent.
OK!! Humanism is your "religion." But they are not the only atheists out there. Peter Singer, a bioethics professor, is a self-styled humanist.
Most ethical people have religious ancestry and backgrounds.
If a humanist wants to be ethical; great. But if not, on what basis can you say he is wrong? His opinion is just as good as yours.
Hitler murdered well over 10 million people. We are sure he was wrong but he was sure he was right. The only standards non-religious people have are their "inclinations," and government law. But if you lived in Nazi Germany the law favored murder.
If you cut flowers and put them in a vase you would think they don't need soil to live. Those who leave religions retain the ethics but there is no assurance their offspring will do so.
Honestly, I have never even heard of this guy, but I can guarantee you that he is on a very short list when it comes to his opinions onthese topics. So, what basis can we say he is wrong? The same basis that we use to make laws, which is secular democracy. That is how functioning societies prosper, not by using archaic, inflexibleguidelines that were written far too early to be relevant to the mechanics and technologiesthat modern culture is driven by. Cultures transition, religions don't. If we used ancient religious scripture to dictate everything about governing and managing society, we would still be herding goats and glorifying the invention of the wheel.
Peter Singer
Peter Albert David Singer , AC (born 6 July 1946) is an Australian moral philosopher. He is currently the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University , and a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne . He specialises in applied ethics and approaches ethical issues from a secular , preference utilitarian perspective. He is known in particular for his book, Animal Liberation (1975), a canonical text in animal rights /liberation theory.
On two occasions Singer served as chair of the philosophy department at Monash University , where he founded its Centre for Human Bioethics . In 1996 he stood unsuccessfully as a Greens candidate for the Australian Senate . In 2004 he was recognised as the Australian Humanist of the Year by the Council of Australian Humanist Societies , and in June 2012 was named a Companion of the Order of Australia for his services to philosophy and bioethics . [ 1 ] He serves on the Advisory Board of Incentives for Global Health, the NGO formed to develop the Health Impact Fund proposal. He was voted one of Australia's ten most influential public intellectuals in 2006. [ 2 ] Singer currently serves on the advisory board of Academics Stand Against Poverty (ASAP).
So thePrinceton bioethics professoryou don't recognize was elected "humanist of the year."
You are both humanists but he is one of the most celebrated ones. Now you know what celebrated humanist ethicistsbelieve.
You need to stop with the stupid games. As your post clearly points out, this guy is Australian, and was recognized as the Australian Humanist of the Year by the Council of Australian Humanist Societies. I have never heard of him, and it shouldn't be all that shocking considering I'm not Australian. The only reason you have heard of him is because you fetishize over any bit of information that you mine from the internet when it comes to painting nonbelievers in a bad light.
Incidentally, I never claimed to be a card carryingHumanist. If I had to pick an organization that most closely resembles my own personal outlook, it would be Humanist, but I have never, ever heard of a Humanist who promotes bestiality or incest until this post. You trying to imply that Humanists must allscrew their pets and diddle their kids because of this one bizarre philosopher's comments, is even less sensible or credible than memaking a claim thatall priests molest children because of the hundreds, or thousands, of them that were caught in the act of doing so.
Hal, the point is not where he comes from. He happens to be a New Jersey resident and Princeton prof.
The point is that, if you are a humanist, there is nothing to stop you from inventing your own ethics and morals. You evidently think Prof. Singer is wrong but he is certain he is right. Who is to judge?
The great philosopher, Immanuel Kant, wrote extensively about the idea of freedom and will. He distinguished between the willed will and the willing will. The former is the will one has from being a prisoner of our senses; from seeing the world as it is. The latter is true will; that which one exerts to make him and the world as they should be. Willed will is not true will as is willing will.
Kant demonstrated that it is possible to have a universal morality without God. Actually he wrote that the basis of religion must be morals rather than science or theology. He added, however, that these morals must be absolute; not derived from questionable sense-experience, precarious inference or fallible reason. This is a lot different from rationality and free thought. The latter is basically subjective; something a person derives from the willed will, not the willing will.
Kant held that we must find a universal and necessary ethic; a priori principles of morals as absolute and certain as mathematics. He said that the moral imperative needed as a basis for religion must be an absolute, a categorical imperative.
From a Jewish standpoint his argument supports the Torah which we consider to be that objective categorical imperative. Kant, of course, did not see it this way preferring to believe that the categorical imperative could be derived from pure reason.
Kant asked what it is that brings the bite of remorse, and the new resolution. His answer is that it is the categorical imperative in us, the unconditional command of our conscience, to act as if the maxim of our action were to become by our will a universal law of nature. If Kant lived during present times, he would see that this is an unreliable method for determining morals because people cannot agree. As the biblicalBook of Judges says: In those days there was no king [read universal categorical imperative] in Israel; everyone did as he pleased.
50 days after the Jews were freed from slavery in Egypt they received the Torah with its 613 commandments. Ostensibly restricting their newly won freedom, the Torah actually provided the means for the former slaves to acquire a willing will to replace their willed will (slave mentality); one they retained after leaving Egypt.
Freedom, by itself, is a hollow benefit unless it is accompanied by a life having transcendent meaning and purpose. These were provided at Sinai where political liberation was transformed to spiritual dedication. While it cannot happen instantly, a person acquires a willing when he internalizes the Torah, and makes Gods will his own. Such a person then becomes relatively immune to harmful temptations that seduce the average person who has a willed will.
We do have basic instincts just as do the lower animals. However, we are higher than animals, according to Judaism. Animals eat what they want whenever they want; screw whom (or what) they want whenever they want. Humans, created in the image of God, have a higher intellect that carries with it a degree of restraint. Most Jewish laws are intended to separate us from animals in the areas of eating and sex. If you see someone following a basic instinct to slobber over his food, you say, he is eating like an animal. If you know someone who is following his basic instinct to be promiscuous, you consider that he screws like a bunny. Is allowing such instincts to flourish humanistic?
Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik discussed the question of whether there can be morality without faith. Can a secular state nurture a moral society? Can a culture that is indifferent to the transcendental imperative inspire ethical performance in public and private life? [Previously] secular humanists were certain that man could be induced and motivated to pursue ethical norms without the absolute imperative of the Divine. Our thesis is that in the long run, and for the masses of society, there can be no such thing. Either man accepts the authority of God as the legislator of the moral norm, or he will eventually fail in all attempts to create a moral society. A relativistic man-made moral order will simply not endure, and the inability of modern secularism, to motivate ethical behavior ... is evidence of this truth.
R Soloveitchik said, in the long run, and for the masses of society. He recognizes that atheists are sometimes more moral than some religious people.
Modern religions of all kinds are downgrading ritual and emphasizing ethical practices. The Ten Commandments are on two tablets. Those on the first tablet are ritual commandments, between humanity and God (The fifth, about honoring parents, is a transition commandment, since parents are like God to a child). The second tablet is about ethics; relations between people. In his excellent book, Understanding Judaism, Rabbi Benjamin Blech includes a chapter entitled, Who Comes First [on the tablets], Man or God? To make a long story short, the answer Blech give is man. The Talmud asks, Who is a pious fool? one standing at the seashore, engrossed in prayer, refusing to heed the call of a drowning man. Every kindness to a person is at the same time a mitzvah; a service to God. Every unkindness is a sin against God. Therefore ethical behavior does double duty, a service to both God AND humanity.
In another chapter Blech asks in the Chapter title, [then] Why is God First on the Tablets? Again to make a long story short, if someone does not fear God his adherence to the ethical commandments is not dependable. It is very easy to rationalize an unethical action.
The Talmud asks, What is better - if a Jew does good because he thinks its good, or because he believes God commanded him to do it? Answer: Better is the Jew who does good because he believes God commanded him... Among the reasons is that this Jew is far more morally reliable. The person who does good based on reason could, another time, just as likely do evil based on reason.
Will Herberg uses the cut-flower analogy. If you cut flowers and put them in a vase someone can say, How beautiful! Flowers dont need soil to survive. Obviously, flowers cannot survive and propagate without the soil to nourish the plant. Ethical Jews who give up Judaism are like flowers without soil. They are still beautiful but the beauty of their progeny is problematic.
In the words of Isaac Breuer, All these proofs lead from the unknown back to the known. Now how could unconditional truth be unconditional if it must first itself be proved...? Whoever would prove the divinity of the Torah denies its unconditionality, denies its character as truth in itself. If the divinity of the Torah is an unconditional truth, then it cannot be an object of [philosophical] proof. It is itself the highest authority for any proof, the highest means of proof for the derivative proof of all other things... A proven God is a de-divinized God. A proven Torah is a dethroned Torah. (Der Neue Kusari, Pg. 264)
In his argument Breuer uses Kants concept of the unconditional. In Kants Critique of Pure Reason the unconditional (das Unbedingt) accounts for the origin of concepts of pure reason. Such concepts are in no way empirically derived. They are prior to all experience. (Between Kant and Kabbalah, Rabbi Alan L. Mittleman, State University of NY Press, 1990, Page 39).
If the concepts of reason contain the unconditional they are concerned with something to which all experience is subordinate, something to which reason leads in its inferences from experience, and in accordance with which it estimates and gauges the degree of its empirical employment, but which is never itself a member of the empirical synthesis. (Kant, Critique of Pure Reason,, trans. Norman Kemp Smith, St. Martin,s Press, NY, 1965, pp 308-9)
Breuer uses unconditional in this distinctive, technical sense. He identifies Torah and God with the Kantian unconditional in terms of a logical equivalence. Torah and God are exempt from the empirical synthesis of experience. They stand above all experience as standards for reason and understanding. Furthermore Torah and God, as unconditional, are the transcendental (that is, non-empirical) conditions of virtue of which the world in all its conditionality is possible. (ibid., Mittleman, Page 40)
Mittleman then discusses Breuers second argument: Breuer puts the case epistemologically, focusing on the relationship of the knowing subject to its object. To prove something renders that thing fully intelligible to reason and subjugates it to the understanding (Verstand). God and Torah, however, are precisely those forces that shape and define the understanding. God is the Creator of the understanding. Torah is that which gives the understanding a normative context in which to operate.
Who advances the proof? Indeed is it not the understanding? Now if it were the case that the knowledge of God and the divinity of the Torah were the result of a proof directed by the understanding, then God and Torah could not count as the Absolute. The understanding would be judge over God and Torah, and the claim of Torah to give direction to the understanding would be a ludicrous presumption. (ibid, Breuer, Page 264)
Those who try to prove the existence of God and the divinity of Torah are guilty of a category mistake. To attempt to assimilate God and Torah to the category of things that can be subordinated to the understanding is to misunderstand their very nature and status. ... Judaism is not offensive to reason but it transcends reason. ... Consequently, the encounter that God and Torah demand exceeds the competence of rationality alone. God and Torah require the devotion of the whole being...
It follows that Judaism cannot be analogous to mathematics for the fact is that Judaism, like good and evil and unlike mathematics, is chosen in freedom. If Judaism were somehow inherent in us, if it were revealed to us in an Erlebnis running from our own depths outward, then we would be angels and not people. (ibid., Mittleman, Page 40-42)
If man has [the power to make] the decision for good or evil then he must also possess freedom of choice with respect to God and the divinity of the Torah. Trust in God and in divinity of Torah is itself the result of a supreme moral act. (Ibid., Breuer)
Judaism must be recognized as transcendent and objective: a reality that must be freely chosen extrinsic to the epistemic, moral subject, Judaism can in no way be derived from the structure of the subjects own mind... It is true that one must struggle to bring ones whole life into harmony with Torah. ... Breuer calls for a radical engagement of the whole person with a world that reason cannot fathom: the world of things in themselves (the Welt an sikh). This engagement, with its corresponding acceptance and [internalization of Torah, is actualized not by reason but by will. (ibid., Mittleman)
His peers are to judge, in a secular and democratic fashion. He is in the extreme minority when it comes to his views on incest and bestiality, and therefore incest and bestiality will never, ever be considered moral or legal acts by the culture he is a part of. Implying that humanists and atheists are forcing society to reconsider those norms, based on extreme outlier events, is disingenuous.
There can be no such thing as universal ethics, as any functioning society absolutely has to have the ability to evolve as necessary to keep up with technology and our ever-increasing understanding of the natural world around us.
For instance, if mankind takes for granted that a god put us here on this earth to use itas we see fit to ensure our own prosperity, as is implied in the scriptures, then we will eventually poison ourselves out of a planet. This is not even debatable. As an example, when synthetic dyes overtook natural dyes, it occurred because science discovered dyes to be an easily obtained byproduct of the massive amount of coal tar that was being created as a waste product from fuel burning. This was a hugely profitable discovery. Unfortunately, the waste by-products produced during the synthesis of dyes are extremely hazardous to human health. At Toms River, NJ, and many other sites throughout the world for that matter, millions of gallons of these waste by-products were poured into lagoons and sandy soils that fed directly into the municipal water supply. Many people died from horrible cancers for many years thereafter as a result.
If we let the manufacturers cite scripture as a defense to keep on using the environment as they see fit to prosper, it would be detrimental to both humanity and the environment. If the humans who authored the scriptures that you so revere, had future scientific knowledge to work from, the scriptures would have been written very differently. The fact that they werent is testament to how primitive and fallible they truly are. They may have been useful at the time they were created, but they are a recipe for destruction by modern standards.
Just look at the things you are prioritizing. If someone eats like a slob, retribution will come in the form of how those around him treat him. There is no meaningful purpose for attempting to legislate such behavior. As far as screwing like a bunny goes, think about the real ramifications of sex as it is intended in the bible. This is perfectly acceptable when it comes to a husband and wife, and the intention is to multiply as prolifically as possible. This was a culturally advantageous philosophy in the days of scripture, as it helped build nations and armies, and it helped ensure that a labor force wouldnt be wiped out completely by diseases that arent even a consideration today. But today, this multiplying concept is very problematic to modern culture.
We live on a planet with finite space, and more importantly, finite resources. In fact, one could argue that nothing could be better for ensuring the sustainability of our planet than to simply accept those who are naturally inclined towards homosexuality. Not only is their behavior natural and instinctual for them, but it is countering a very real problem created and exacerbated by heterosexuals. This is just another example of how your ancient and inflexible scriptural guidelines eventually prove themselves to be destructive to humanity and the environment.
This is entirely ignorant of the fact that what is written in religious doctrines is written by man! In fact, it is not nearly as unchanging and divinely inspired as religions want you to believe. Bart Ehrman has demonstrated throughout a lifetime study of scripture, using his privileged access to the most ancient surviving versions of scripture and his fluency in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic, that modern translations arent even close to the original versions. They have been bastardized and edited profusely over time, by leaders and scribes, to read how they wanted them to read.
Len>>The point is that,if you are a humanist, there is nothing to stop you from inventing your own ethics and morals. You evidently think Prof. Singer is wrong but he is certain he is right. Who is to judge?
His peers HAVE judged. He is a celebrated Princeton professor of bioethics and philosophy. He is a Laureate Professor at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne . He has, on two occasions, served as chair of the philosophy department at Monash University , where he founded its Centre for Human Bioethics . In 2004 he was recognised as the Australian Humanist of the Year by the Council of Australian Humanist Societies , and in June 2012 was named a Companion of the Order of Australia for his services to philosophy and bioethics . [1] He serves on the Advisory Board of Incentives for Global Health, the NGO formed to develop the Health Impact Fund proposal. He was voted one of Australia's ten most influential public intellectuals in 2006.
He is far from rejected by his peers.
Len>>Kant held that we must find a universal and necessary ethic; a priori principles of morals as absolute and certain as mathematics. He said that the moral imperative needed as a basis for religion must be an absolute, a categorical imperative.
It IS debatable because God put us here with TWO guidelines:
Creative subduing the earth in humanitys service is the role of technology. But guarding the earth places limits on the extent with which we subdue it. It requires us to ask not just what and how but also why.
The Author of Scripture anticipated your qualms though, being obviously unfamiliar with Scripture, you dont know it. Scripture provided for guarding of nature even to the extent, for example, of a sabbatical for resting of the soil, allowing trees three years before fruit could be picked, and forbidding destruction of trees during war.
Len>>If you see someone following a basic instinct to slobber over his food, you say, he is eating like an animal. If you know someone who is following his basic instinct to be promiscuous, you consider that he screws like a bunny. Is allowing such instincts to flourish humanistic?
What you call prioritizing is simply an example of how humans and animals differ. While Scripture has an abundance of specific un-prioritized commandments, it also has a general commandment: You shall be holy. (Lev. 20:26) Slobbering over food violates this as does promiscuity.
Aside from the fact of a specific commandment prohibiting male homosexual relations, the fact is that we are going overboard in limiting population and this is harmful to both our economy and our civilization. We have less and less young people supporting more and more older ones. Even in China, the one child limit has been eliminated because it is hurting their economy in so many ways. Politically, Islam is threatening to smother other peoples because Islam exhibits fast-growing populations as others are declining as a result of birth control and abortion.
Len>>Either man accepts the authority of God as the legislator of the moral norm, or he will eventually fail in all attempts to create a moral society. A relativistic man-made moral order will simply not endure, and the inability of modern secularism, to motivate ethical behavior ... is evidence of this truth.
Bart Ehrman is a New Testament Scholar and has not commented significantly on the Jewish Scriptures.
Studies of the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Jewish Scriptures are essentially unchanged for over 2000 years. While there is a marked difference in construction of Torah scrolls in the East and West, they agree word for word. So the Torah is unchanged over both space and time.
I don't need to ask a crowd. The Avant Guard has spoken. The university brass world wide has placed its imprimatur on the professor, just as it did onabortion and homosexuality years before the public knew it considered those things normal and right.