Chief Rabbi v. Dawkins

[Griffin NoName]

I deliberately use the title thread with "versus" as the discussion that aired on BBC last night was presented by the Chief Rabbi as (IMO) an unctuous, glib, misrepresentation. I strongly suspect this was achieved by some drastic editing in the Chief Rabbi's favour.

For once, Dawkin was reasonably restrained. His only real attempt to destabilise faith was in pushing the C.Rabbi on whether he believed re. the sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham, that Isaac was actually placed on an alter. The C.Rabbi ducked this three times. I was surprised this was not edited out, but suspect there would not have been much left without it.

The jolly ending with religion and faith striding off into the sunset seemed contrived and based on hyperbole. All Dawkins really agreed to was that some aspects of science and religion, like "hope" were not incompatible, whereas the C.Rabbi flaunted it as if they were now best mates.

The discussion is well reported on the link above, what they write is what I heard.

[Roland Deschain]

Thanks for the link, Griffin. I shall peruse the article in a little while, then see if it's on the iPlayer at all. Hopefully it is, and then I shall be able to post an informed opinion of it. Sounds...biased.

[Roland Deschain]

Found something?

So I listened to the whole conversation, and became confused early on, as it was nothing like the article. I found one on Radio 4 (see link above) hosted by Andrew Marr, and found that the whole thing was quite civilised and fairly balanced. Whatever, i'll comment only on what i've read in the article, although the above link is interesting too, as it ties in a little with what's in the article.

What Sacks is doing there is glossing over the more unsavoury points of his religion, and evolving it to a more inclusive and ethical one. Christianity has done this in some areas, most notably where they ignore OT/Jewish Bible laws and Pauline doctrine, and focus on Jesus' reported words. He also uses the typical dodging tactic used when the religious are faced with rather difficult moral questions based on the Bible.

Sacks is quite moderate in most ways, so is not as easy to criticise as many religious people can be, but Richard brings up well-used but very good points. As I said above, it's not surprising that Sacks attempts to turn the fable of Abram/Abraham and Isaac into an allegory about respecting your children, all the while completely ignoring the blatantly obvious mental illness or religious mania needed to even contemplate sacrificing a child, as this would put him on very shaky ground.

I think Sacks quite nicely personifies the conflicting attitude of the moderately religious person in so far as they hold some admirable views they can be respected for, such as teaching a love for knowledge and questioning, looking for answers instead of accepting them, and being a decent person with respect for others. Unfortunately, this is tempered by an almost blatant disregard for this when it comes to matters of religion, or at least an attempt to sugarcoat that which doesn't gel with a moderate attitude to life. His remarks almost make Judaism sound like a Deist philosophy, far removed from its roots.

Religion usually does one of two things whenever it is threatened:-

1 - It fights back with fanaticism and fundamentalism such as seen in evangelicals in the US, and Islamic fundamentalists in the Middle East and South-East Asia. Literal interpretations abound in this mode.

2 - It alters its position to follow the moral zeitgeist, becoming more moderate, and reinterpreting its foundations as either allegory or non-literal, ignoring or justifying vile deeds with either historical context or interpretive ones.

A religion can indeed survive under either of the above two positions, but those that follow the first are ultimately doomed to fail, as shown by our own history. Someone from 1000 years ago would hardly recognise what their religion has become today, just as someone from today would hardly recognise what their religion will become 1000 years from now, assuming that it was still around.

[Roland Deschain]

To add further to what i've said, is it such a bad thing that religions change with the times? I'd rather a religion become more and more moderate, relegating their god to the fringes, than have it stand its ground and kill in the name of stubbornness.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I think there is always a mix of both, even a 'moderate' may internally justify those questionable events by thinking that in those days it was necessary or even able to go through with the same behavior if the current society tolerated it.

A rational believer would likely move from religion to spirituality if forced to acknowledge the inherent cognitive dissonance of religion.

[Roland Deschain]

I think there is always a mix of both, even a 'moderate' may internally justify those questionable events by thinking that in those days it was necessary or even able to go through with the same behavior if the current society tolerated it.

A rational believer would likely move from religion to spirituality if forced to acknowledge the inherent cognitive dissonance of religion.

Exactly. I've seen, I think, all the justifications under the sun for acts which, if perpetrated today, would be vilified as abhorrent. There's the "God moves in mysterious ways" one, which means that we can't understand him, so please don't bother, there's "God is above morality", which means that he can do as he pleases, pretty much the same as the mysterious moves, there's the "But it's a metaphor" one, which is seen above, and there's the "You're taking it out of context" one, which breaks down into either historical or translational context, or one of its place within the rest of the text.

Those are the major ones, with others being but variations. I've seen them all, and all are easily refuted with logic and reason.

[Griffin NoName]

To add to understanding Sacks, he himself and his version, are anathema to the ultra orthodox Jews. He is merely orthodox. They would never agree to an allegory. Actually although Sacks did, I didn't find it very convincing, it came over to me as saying it for the sake of not having an argument. Certainly when I was taught about Abraham and Isaac by (not-ultra) othodox of Sacks persuasion, it was not taught as allegory. Nor was anything else nasty.

why the bible is not now known as a book of dubious wisdom by all I have no idea - no one tries to actually believe people did the things the I-Ching says they did/do.

[pieces o nine]

To add to understanding Sacks, he himself and his version, are anathema to the ultra orthodox Jews. He is merely orthodox. 

poseur        

[Roland Deschain]

There are ultra orthodox, or fundamentalist, members of every religion. What he said about allegory was leaning further left than orthodox to me, so maybe you are, indeed, correct in that he blatantly lied to avoid confrontation. I thought maybe I missed something by not being able to hear the debate, so I went off to look for it properly, and...FOUND IT!.

So now i've seen it, and have some more to say on it (you can't leave now ). Sacks comes across as suffering from a bad case of cognitive dissonance. He also lies, doing so to make himself far more moderate than what he should be. He goes out of his way to be non-confrontational, where he should have stuck to what he believed, but is that necessarily a bad thing if he truly does believe it? I don't think he does, but if that's what is taught, it's far better than the alternative. He almost comes across as a "Liar for Jehovah".

What I do take issue with more than anything is his insistence that there is no conflict between science and religion. There so obviously is, and to believe otherwise is to be delusional. If you want to teach your child to think critically, that must also include religion. Religion does not get a special get out of jail free card which exempts it from the assault of critical thinking. Nothing is exempt from it.

He says that his god is not a god of the gaps, but how so? As the second interviewee so eloquently puts it, gods fill in the knowledge we do not have, and as our knowledge increases, gods decrease. He uses doublethink to get across his conflicting viewpoints. With the neurologist, who admits that we do not understand consciousness yet, he says that's where god comes in. How is that not a god of the gaps? It certainly looks like it to me.

Then we come to other events in the OT, where science is directly contradicted, such as in the creation story, and the assertion that bats are birds, not to mention Jehovah giving us every animal to eat at the beginning, then declaring pigs and shellfish as an abomination a while later. It's madness. The OT also conflicts with history on so many areas. Take the Jewish invasion and occupation of Canaan. Joshua was meant to have personally commanded the armies who destroyed so many Canaanite cities, but archaeological evidence shows us that many of the cities weren't destroyed, and of those that were, they were done so from inside, and over a time scale greater than the average human lifespan.

Take a look at the OT/JB. I can't think of many places which explicitly say that what you are about to read is allegorical rather than literal. The creation story is written as if literal, the story of Abraham and Isaac is written as if literal, all those times cities were taken and their inhabitants slaughtered, but the virgin girls kept, were presented as literal, the prophet who called upon Jehovah to kill a group of boys for calling him "Baldie" is presented as literal. At no point does it say here that it's allegory, and meant as a lesson to learn. Whether or not these stories were told as allegory originally makes no difference. What matters is how they are interpreted now.

He says that Judaism teaches its adherents to respect children, and that they aren't property, but this is at odds with the bear story and virgin girls story above, and also greatly at odds with so many other parts of the OT, so why does he ignore them? He, better than most, understands what's in the OT, so what's the issue here? Is he embarrassed by these stories?

No, he may come across as very moderate for an orthodox Jew, but he is either delusional or a liar. Take your pick.

To add to understanding Sacks, he himself and his version, are anathema to the ultra orthodox Jews. He is merely orthodox.  

poseur        

Touché.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Right near the end (of my faith), I had flipped what the bible meant to me, from "The bible is god's word" to "the bible is a journal of people trying to understand what they thought god is/was".

In the former, it would be quite difficult to change, edit, delete, add-to parts of the bible-- what mere, mortal human would have the hubris to touch it?

In the latter?  The problem is, there is no longer anything remotely sacred in any of the bible-- the whole can be edited, or simply tossed out as a bad bit of human misunderstanding.

I did not realize this last bit of ultimate consequence that came as result of my flip, in sentence one, above.   But it eventually came to me, and I did toss the whole out, apart from a historical reference to the mistakes people had committed previously (as in:  don't do that).

Either model is bothersome, really. 

If the first model were correct, then god becomes nothing short of a monster-- for all the evil that is within the bible.

If the second model were correct, then god becomes nothing short of a monster-- for failing to educate his followers better to prevent all the evil that is chronicled within the bible.

... meh.

The only model that does not end, with god being a monster (either directly, or uncaring-- a monster either way), is if there is no god at all, not really.  (A completely indifferent god is functionally identical to no god at all.)

And in the end?  The very existence of such horrible books as the Quoran or the OT/NT?  Is, to me, pretty good proof that there is no god at all!

What god, who actually cared about the fate of individual humans, would permit such as these to continue to sully it's good name(s)?

Only a monstrous one-- or a completely indifferent one (which is the same as none at all).

I think the monstrous god can be ruled out, simply from the rise of no-belief in the modern era-- a truly monstrous god wouldn't let such things stand for long-- it's ego would soon overtake any long-term planning. 

Such is the way of monsters.

So that leaves only the indifferent/no-god hypothesis.

Again and again, as I'm confronted by theists with differing arguments, I eventually come around to:  either a monster-god or a 100% indifferent god or no god at all.   Occam's razor applies, I think-- the simplest thing, is no gods of any kind.

Of course, there is a fourth possible road, that some brave theists present:  a very-very limited deity, who simply does not have unlimited power, but does care, and is doing the best he/she/it is able within the unbreakable rules.

That's nice.

But. 

I find I simply cannot respect such a wimpy deity-- it's not really a god at all.... is it?

No matter how nice they play-- a bully is still a bully in the end.

[Griffin NoName]

@Bob

It's strange how believers always think they are on the side of the saved, as opposed to belonging to the groups that get smited.

He says that Judaism teaches its adherents to respect children, and that they aren't property,

I've never heard this one before. Why would a parent educate their child into believing unless one "owned" them? Also all my contemporaries were expected to be doctors, lawyers, or accountants. I was luckier, and could wear the T-shirt with "my son's a rocket scientist".

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

We all educate our children in many things, does that mean that we 'own' them or just the privilege to educate them as we see fit?
---
Now, in agrarian societies parents owned their children and used them as labor systematically, if anything religion encouraged that behavior and not the opposite.

[Aggie]

Right near the end (of my faith), I had flipped what the bible meant to me, from "The bible is god's word" to "the bible is a journal of people trying to understand what they thought god is/was".

........

In the latter?  The problem is, there is no longer anything remotely sacred in any of the bible-- the whole can be edited, or simply tossed out as a bad bit of human misunderstanding.

I did not realize this last bit of ultimate consequence that came as result of my flip, in sentence one, above.   But it eventually came to me, and I did toss the whole out, apart from a historical reference to the mistakes people had committed previously (as in:  don't do that).

Exactly. I've seen, I think, all the justifications under the sun....

...there's the "But it's a metaphor" one

I think there's some use in this one, if it involves some serious personal exploration of wherever the metaphor is capable of leading. The Bible is as useful as any number of books for finding oddities to explore and re-interpret at a personal level.  Personally, I like Lewis Carroll's Alice books better, as they are more entertaining to read and more directly spoof various aspects of human nature, but many bits of writing can be the key to unlocking various aspects of yourself.  However, the lock and the hand turning the key is you, and any number of keys may work just fine.  

The only model that does not end, with god being a monster (either directly, or uncaring-- a monster either way), is if there is no god at all, not really.  (A completely indifferent god is functionally identical to no god at all.)

And in the end?  The very existence of such horrible books as the Quoran or the OT/NT?  Is, to me, pretty good proof that there is no god at all!

What god, who actually cared about the fate of individual humans, would permit such as these to continue to sully it's good name(s)?

Only a monstrous one-- or a completely indifferent one (which is the same as none at all).

I think the monstrous god can be ruled out, simply from the rise of no-belief in the modern era-- a truly monstrous god wouldn't let such things stand for long-- it's ego would soon overtake any long-term planning.  

Such is the way of monsters.

So that leaves only the indifferent/no-god hypothesis.

Again and again, as I'm confronted by theists with differing arguments, I eventually come around to:  either a monster-god or a 100% indifferent god or no god at all.   Occam's razor applies, I think-- the simplest thing, is no gods of any kind.

Of course, there is a fourth possible road, that some brave theists present:  a very-very limited deity, who simply does not have unlimited power, but does care, and is doing the best he/she/it is able within the unbreakable rules.

That's nice.

But.  

I find I simply cannot respect such a wimpy deity-- it's not really a god at all.... is it?

Bob, I'm aware we disagree on the details of this (although I think we agree on the central point, but approach it from very different points of view; those of one approaching from the end of their faith and one approaching from the end of their atheism).  

^{I'm an advocate of the assertion that 'god' and 'nothing' are synonymous, but I happen to think it invokes a fair bit of pondering on what 'nothing' is rather than allowing one to neatly say 'there is no god'.}

It depends what you demand from a god, and complete indifference does not negate my idea of deity, provided there is any ability to interface with that-which-is-indifferent.  The sea is indifferent to us, yet we are easily able to interface with the sea, explore it, be struck down by it.  All (lack of) evidence suggests that god is much more difficult to interface with than the sea.  If you insist on demanding a powerful god who (although not physically present) is able to change human behaviour at a global level simply by having His followers build shrines open to all, try Ronald McDonald.  


I suppose that what fascinates me is the power that humankind has placed in its deities over the course of history.  I don't think it's a terrible stretch to say that human history has been shaped and guided by god(s), even if it's quite obvious that the gods who have done the shaping are human creations and function only through evolutionarily-derived quirks of the human brain. For the record, I do think that it's worth poking around at that part of the human brain that feels drawn towards the divine, using whatever techniques can be devised. We don't have the technical tools to adequately answer these questions yet, so at a personal level I feel that it's worth introspectively poking around a bit to see whether I can get a better level of understanding based on my own experience. Pure atheism and a complete denial of the divine makes it a bit difficult to do this kind of poking around, ergo I consider myself post-atheist.


The religious history of our species suggests to me that at some point in our evolution, the ability to invent and envision gods gave us a distinct advantage over humans who did not have this ability. It's tempting to say that this possibly vestigial trait no longer holds a role in human evolution, but would anyone care to perform a survey of human reproductive rates vs. the level of religious orthodoxy held by the reproductive parties?  

Evolution is by no means worried about some glorious and benign end point of 'evolved' humanity. For that matter, why should the evolution of a god-meme result in a present, beautiful, benevolent and powerful God? If the concept of God is used to explain the way the world works, then a violent, vengeful, mostly absent and utterly monstrous God is a better fit for the world that has been experienced by humankind throughout the ages. There's little surprise that this is the face of God depicted in much of the scriptural material that has been handed down.  

The apparent incongruities of that image of God with the current state of the human experience of the world (including our current level of knowledge and our standards of living) says much about how the human experience has changed. Where and when a powerful, benevolent God has been preached in contradiction with the observed state of the world, it's often been necessary to fall back on the justifications that Roland identifies, or invoke a Devil or other evil demi-God to blame for the state of things, or blame a less-than-worthy humankind directly for the state of things.  The latter is closest to the truth, but there's no room for progress when the answer to innate human tendencies is increased orthodoxy.  

I think the monstrous god can be ruled out, simply from the rise of no-belief in the modern era-- a truly monstrous god wouldn't let such things stand for long-- it's ego would soon overtake any long-term planning.  

disclaimer: the following is fantastic thought-exercise only and does not reflect any personally held opinions or beliefs regarding actual events.

Oh, I'd disagree here.... there's really no scope for truly horrific religiously-based slaughter unless you have a large number of infidels to kill. You'd need a fair smattering of atheists spread throughout the population, including both prominent public figures and those who prefer to hold their opinions privately, to initiate a proper witch-hunt.   A proper climate of religious extremism is necessary first, to make sure those complicit with the the purge do not protest it, for fear of being accused of humanism over proper allegiance to The Faith.

Perhaps you are falling into the trap of anthropomorphising something beyond humanity...  although long-term thinking is not particularly in vogue with the human face of evil at the moment, true evil knows when to keep playing out enough rope to let the victim hang themselves.  

[Griffin NoName]

We all educate our children in many things, does that mean that we 'own' them or just the privilege to educate them as we see fit?

To be specifically  "a believer" is closing down, not opening up which is what education is. Learning texts and ritual, fine, but believing? no. I think this stems from not seeing offspring as separate beings.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

The religious history of our species suggests to me that at some point in our evolution, the ability to invent and envision gods gave us a distinct advantage over humans who did not have this ability.

How about existential solace? Life is hard and senseless, with lots of fear, uncertainty and death all around, once you realize that, it is easier to contemplate stopping altogether, why fight to survive if I may die tonight at the fangs of a leopard? Our brain gives us the option to override our instincts -like survival- and indeed we are one of the few species that commits suicide (assuming beached cetaceans intend to die which isn't certain at all), so how do you replace that all important instinct? And those who don't have that solace are more likely to suffer from depression, possibly dying before having offspring.

Makes you wonder if other intelligent species can or have developed equivalent mechanisms.

We all educate our children in many things, does that mean that we 'own' them or just the privilege to educate them as we see fit?

To be specifically  "a believer" is closing down, not opening up which is what education is. Learning texts and ritual, fine, but believing? no. I think this stems from not seeing offspring as separate beings.

I don't agree, as a parent I transmit my son what I believe even if I do so unwittingly (we have had this conversation with my wife BTW) and in doing so I'm raising the odds that he will believe as I do. You don't need to do formal indoctrination in order to achieve said indoctrination as you present reality as you see it yourself, and if that includes (or excludes) belief, that same perception is received at the other end. I may like to think that I have instilled critical thinking to my son on the subject, but the reality is that he will take my thoughts as a model to embrace or reject, with rejection at a significantly lower probability.