I posted this blog a while ago and even though I am a more precise writer now I liked this one and wanted to put it up on this site.
I ran into an old classmate I had not seen in almost thirteen years. The last time we knew each other we were both near the end of the long road towards ordination within the orthodox rabbinate. I left the program he stayed on. He was shocked that any of his peer group, we who had been intimate with god, that one of us could become secular.
He wanted to know why. Maybe he cared about my well-being or maybe he wanted to feel superior. He wanted to know why I don't spend my days shooting up or getting hookers or robbing people, "after all," he said, "if there is no god then you can do anything you want. There is no morality, no right and wrong, no one to say no."
"Isn't it possible that morality, right and wrong, healthy and unhealthy, isn't it probable that these values are instinctive. For example, imagine you're wandering around the desert, your family in a large tribe with other families and its 2000bc. A day off, a sabbath day for rest and family is an important and needed value.
In today's world we have language. We can quote studies and statistics and cite case law and medical records all to explain what we instinctivly know, that a day off for rest and family is an important and needed value. But 4000 years ago they didn't have the language we have since developed. So, isn't it possible that god was brought in to cement those realizations; that we needed to insert god to validate our instinct."
"you can interpet the bible anthropologically, but that's just your point of view, that doesn't disprove anything," he said.
"Disprove? Shouldn't it be like science, here you are stating a theory, your theory is that there is a god, not only is there a god but it is this god and that this god wants a-b-c from us. You should have to prove that theory before I have to disprove it. You cannot disprove and unevidenced theory. Where is your proof?""
My proof is the world, our world, the daily miricales, all the really smart people who have believed, morality and faith. Faith is not needing proof."
"Well look," I said. "Let's ignore the faith issue because on that one we are speaking two diffrent languages. Our existence alone proves nothing. The evidence all reputable scientists agree certainly points towards some form of evolutionary path. But even if there are things we can't explain or can't understand,all that means is we don't have an answer yet. Just like we didn't always have antibiotics. But not having an answer doesn't mean that the default answer is god. And pleanty of smart people have believed in pleanty of dumb things, like slavery and jew killing, so what smart people do only shows that people can believe and do anything. The only point left is morality.
So let me understand. You believe that without god man would have no senseof morality of right and wrong?"
"That's right."
"And you believe that because there is a god man knows right from wrong, which choices lead to fufillment and which do not, healthy behaviors from unhealthy behaviors?"
"Absolutely."
"So you want to sleep with your sister and the only reason you don't is because god tells you not to?
6 comments:
I still love that last line..
Thats the line that makes it all work.
Over sukkot I got into a similar argument with debbie and barry and finally I said,"you're right debbie, Barry really wanted to sleep with bubbie but couldn't cause the torah said not to." I think that was the straw that broke the back at that meal.
You were planning on getting semicha? You were near the end? Where were you learning?
I am wary of all fundementalists, be they for or against the existance of God. When we are too certain of something we often close the doors on new thoughts and experiences.
To argue for the existance of Gog as a possible entity is unreasonable or futile.
To argue for God a POSSIBLE cause is more reasonable.
The difference is subtle, but important.
In viewing the complex phenomena of the universe and life in particular, we are faced with a great many mysteries. To immediately attribute every unsolved mystery to God is infantile and stifles thought. But, to ponder God as a possible cause or possible factor in an incredibly complex and mysterious is not beyond reason.
I am wary of all fundementalists, be they for or against the existance of God. When we are too certain of something we often close the doors on new thoughts and experiences.
To argue for the existance of Gog as a possible entity is unreasonable or futile.
To argue for God a POSSIBLE cause is more reasonable.
The difference is subtle, but important.
In viewing the complex phenomena of the universe and life in particular, we are faced with a great many mysteries. To immediately attribute every unsolved mystery to God is infantile and stifles thought. But, to ponder God as a possible cause or possible factor in an incredibly complex and mysterious is not too far beyond reason.
i was talking with two religious guys this past week and they admitted they're desire to sleep with their mothers and sisters. one even said he has a hot mom.
religios are cre crazy
Post a Comment