#7 Why do/don’t we believe in the Theory of Evolution?

#7 Why do/don’t we believe in the Theory of Evolution?

This is a great way to phrase the question because there are two very distinct types of evolution that Evolutionists came up with, which will be very crucial in evaluating the theory from a Jewish perspective.

The basic rudiments of the theory (then and now) asserts an idea which is called “common ancestry”. It means that all the diversity of all biological life we see today started from one single self-replicating organism which lived billions of years ago.

This original organism (no evolutionist has a clue as to how it got here) generated all this diversity from two factors:

1) Random advantageous mistakes in the self-replicating process

2) Natural selection—environmental conditions which favors the new advantages acquired by the newly modified species to help it edge out over the old standard type and cause it to dominate the ecological niche.

This theory’s view of the origins of ALL biological life on Earth is at complete loggerheads with Judaism’s account of origins via mystical creation.

From the Chumash text, to Chazal, to rishonim and achronim—all traditional Jewish writing on the matter shows that Man’s creation was not a natural biological event produced by biological parents. Only since Darwin have a tiny fraction of Orthodox rabbis attempted to accommodate it by creative re-interpretation of Bereishis, but they have rendered 2,000 years of Jewish teaching on the subject obsolete in the process.

· What are the facts? Doesn’t the direct observation of species adaptation contradict the Torah’s account of special creation?

There are two types of evolution (as distinguished by evolutionists themselves):

1) There is the idea of micro-evolutionary changes and adaptations to environment within various sub-sections in the biological world:

which can be directly observed by studying a given population over time. Bacteria and antibiotics are a classic example. In addition, to assert that all species of dogs came from a single common dog ancestor, the Torah has absolutely no trouble accepting this as plausible. Judaism does believe in micro-evolution.

2) There is the idea of macro-evolution which posits that very different types of animals share a common ancestor.

A single ancestor apparently must have had certain root characteristics which later branched out into the tremendous diversity we see today throughout the entire biological world. Bats and whales and every mammal in between (including humans) share a common mammal ancestor, etc. I.e. the grand 'tree of life' connected by familial relationships via descent (not just classified by similar characteristics)

The Torah has a lot of trouble accepting 2).

As the above terminology implies, micro-evolution can be observed directly and can be repeated consistently by any researcher, but macro-evolution by its definition CANNOT be observed by anyone today. It’s referring to an alleged ancestor and an alleged process that is only perceptible in terms of hundred of thousands or millions of years. This alleged process can be allegedly described in very detailed scenarios by some evolutionists, but they are not describing a process they have actually observed. They are describing a scenario in which they imagine that this macro- process could have occurred under the assumed conditions.

Aside from various lines of indirect evidence and multiple biological clues in favor of macro-evolution, the only real logical basis they have for common ancestry and that some process of this kind must have occurred is-- the non-existence of certain types of animals at an earlier period of natural history and their appearance later.

This logic assumes that Divine non-natural creation is not an acceptable explanation for new forms of life even though there may be physical evidence in its favor and it could answer a lot of problems in the data. It is ruled out simply because it is not a scientific proposition.

The rhetorical question that macro-evolution comes to answer is: “How else did these new types of animals come into existence later, if not due to a process of development from earlier animal forms?” This is why many prominent evolutionists openly refer to Evolution as an indisputable fact and the theory is really just about the details of how this fact came about. About the precise mechanism of evolution there is lively debate with each school dismissing the arguments/evidence produced by the other. These dismissals are not mutually exclusive.

The bottom line is that there cannot be evidence against a theological position that claims new species were simply produced mystically and did not require any physical/natural process. Science can only analyze natural physical events from a vantage-point of methodological naturalism. Creation is a mystical process/event which is not (normally) detectable or given to careful examination by any of the physical tools of scientific measurement and experiment.

The irony is that macro-evolution itself has similar impossibilities of measurement and experiment, but the dominant community of scientists like to call it science anyway. The scientific community is simply pitting their naturalistic explanatory framework for life against our mystical explanatory framework for life. Direct evidence is not available for either side (unless we make a time machine, or see a golem being made today).

In truth, evolution is not really a laboratory science but “historical science” which does not have nearly the same certainty nor authority as ordinary physical science. It is a grand explanatory framework for what is assumed to be a natural process. It is not a real physical science and is not something traditional Judaism needs to feel threatened by.

#17. Are the Torah laws old-fashioned? #18. Why are there many separate branches of Judaism?

#17. Are the Torah laws old-fashioned?

#18. Why are there many separate branches of Judaism?

I

These two questions directly flow from one to the other. The reason why there are 'many' separate branched of Judaism is precisely because many Jews of the modern era have come to regard the Torah's laws as being old-fashioned--conceived purely for the sake of a particular point of time in ancient history for a particular society and culture.

A clear rejection to this approach by our tradition can be supported by the following trenchant observation:

Judaism has NEVER fit seamlessly into any historical period, society or culture. Judaism has been horribly inconvenient and morally/spiritually challenging to its practitioners from its inception.

A quick review of the facts: (These six items below are taken from Rabbi Dovid Gottleib's research)

Here are six examples of singularly unique Jewish beliefs.

1. Monotheism. Polytheistic idolatry is the rule in ancient Middle Eastern religions. The idea that there is only a single deity is unknown.[1] The uncompromising commitment of Judaism to one G-d only as the cause of all the phenomena of the world is without parallel in the ancient world.

2. Universalism/Exclusivity. Each ancient nation had its own pantheon of gods. But each recognized the appropriateness of other nations worshipping their own pantheons.[2] The universalism of Judaism – the recognition that G-d alone governs the whole universe, and the consequent exclusivity of Judaism – its denial of the reality of others’ gods, are absent from ancient religions.[3] For this reason, aside from Antiochus’ attempt to eliminate Judaism, there are no religious wars in the ancient world![4] When one country conquered another the second was usually required to acknowledge the chief god of the conqueror, and the conquered were usually happy to comply: the very fact that they lost the war proved that the chief god of the conqueror was very powerful. The rest of the religion of the conquered nation was left intact. Only the Jews proclaimed a universal and exclusive concept of deity: the Jewish G-d is the only real G-d.

3. Spirituality. Ancient religions associated gods very closely with physical objects and/or physical phenomena. They abound in nature deities: gods of the sun, moon, sea, fertility, death etc. The gods are given human or animal form. The only ancient religion to declare that G-d has no physical embodiment, form or likeness is Judaism.[5]

4. G-d as absolute. Ancient religions picture the gods as limited in power. Many start with a genealogy of the gods. That means that certain powers predate them and are out of their control. Only Judaism understands G-d as the creator of all that exists and completely unlimited in His power over creation.

5. Morality. The gods of the ancient world are pictured as petty tyrants acting out their all-too-human desires in conflict with men and with one another. No condition of absolute moral perfection applies to those gods.[6] Only the Jewish G-d is defined as meeting that description.

6. Anti-homosexuality. All ancient cultures permitted some forms of homosexuality, and for some it had religious application. The only exception is Judaism, which opposed all forms of homosexuality, whether religious or merely hedonistic.[7]

In addition, here is an example of a unique Jewish practice:

7. The synagogue. The historian Menahem Stern writes: “It has been rightly said that, in establishing the synagogue, Judaism created one of the greatest revolutions in the history of religion and society, for the synagogue was an entirely new environment for divine service, of a type unknown anywhere before, and it did not entail the ceremonial restrictions and financial sacrifices that were required for the maintenance of temples.”[8]

To ancient cultures, these elements of Jewish belief and practice appeared absurd. They contradicted the common experience and convictions of the whole ancient Middle East. Maintaining them branded Jews as quixotic outcasts. The historical problem is to explain how a people originated and preserved so extreme a set of beliefs without being overwhelmed by the unanimous consensus of all the other nations in their environment.

In some cases, aspects of a culture which serve no purpose, or are even detrimental to the functioning of the culture, may be preserved, if the culture is outstandingly successful in other areas. One may imagine the religion of an empire preserved by accompanying the military and economic success of the empire. It was worthwhile to pledge allegiance to Roman gods since that granted Roman citizenship, and to the gods of Greece since that brought association with the philosophy, science and art of Greece. But no such explanation will help for the uniqueness of Jewish belief during the ancient period. The Jewish nation did not enjoy any outstanding secular success that could have served as the means of preserving Judaism. There was no far-flung Jewish empire,[9] nor were there revolutionary innovations in mathematics, medicine, economics, architecture, the arts, philosophy etc. Since these did not exist, we cannot explain the survival of Judaism as a mere accompaniment of an otherwise successful culture.

One final characteristic of ancient Judaism must be noted. Throughout the ancient period substantial numbers of Jews experimented with other forms of religious belief and practice. The prophets testify to Jewish idol worship. During the Babylonian exile a significant percentage of Jews intermarried and adapted their beliefs to the Babylonian milieu. When Greek culture became dominant in the Middle East, many Jews became Hellenized. During the end of the second Temple, the Sadducees rejected the traditional Oral Law and substituted their own adaptations of Jewish practice. Needless to say, all these efforts eventually failed. The survival of (unmodified) Judaism contrasts with those competing Jewish cultural forms that expired.

SUMMARY

Judaism in the ancient period is unique in monotheism, universality and exclusivity, spirituality, G-d’s absolute power, moral perfection, the total rejection of homosexuality, and the invention of the synagogue for divine service. No secular success of Jewish culture was the cause of the maintenance of these unique aspects of Judaism. Substantial numbers of Jews adopted other forms of religious practice – these have disappeared.

So we can easily conclude that Judaism was never a popular religion which was designed to conform to the prevailing beliefs and practices or cultures of ancient civilization. We extend this fact to claim that Judaism by definition can never really be a popular religion. This is not to say that Judaism doesn’t have any meaningful or even enjoyable elements to it. It just means that it will not conform to any human-based value system or conception of natural religion.

Therefore all non-Orthodox branches of Judaism lose their claim to validity when they say Judaism needs to be updated to reflect modern values and sensibilities. One could define the essence of Judaism as formulated in Pirkei Avos: “Fashion your will to conform to His will.” And the Talmud in Brachos identifies the two forces which prevent us from doing this: The evil inclination and the influence of the Non-Jewish nations.

The hallmark of a heretic from our point of view is an unwillingness to submit to the Torah’s authority in any area of life—from private behavior to societal norms to abstract belief. Judaism has always demanded the willingness to make extreme sacrifices—socially, physically, emotionally and intellectually--from the very first Jew (Avrohom Avinu) onward.

II

The truth of this bold assertion starts to get obscured by the Rambam's controversial statements in this matter. In Book III of the Moreh Chapters 26-49 he takes a broad survey of most of the mitzvos of the Torah and discusses many specific ones category by category. In chapter 29-32 he says that a certain number of prohibitions in the Torah were designed specifically to counter certain widespread erroneous beliefs in the ancient pagan world and a certain number of positive commandments were given as concessions to ease the ancient Israelites out of their pagan culture and into pure monotheistic worship.

There is an explicit comment by Chazal to this effect regarding the prohibition against the consumption of blood. This is cited by the Rambam in his intro to Pirkei Avos.

How do we respond to this approach?

The response is that pagan culture and other ancient practices that the Torah indeed came to counter reflect a certain basic spiritual orientation that is a part of the human personality. The Torah is addressing a universal component of the human personality and is negating it, or refining it, or educating it. Without the Torah’s addressing of this issue for all future history, we would revert to that human mode of thinking naturally and adopt some parallel form of practice to reflect it today.

An example can be taken from the history of homosexuality in the western world. For centuries before and after the Torah was given, homosexuality was a part of all human culture. But ever since the western world came under heavy influence of the Torah’s novel approach to religion and sexual orientation, (via the non-Jewish adaptations of it) homosexuality ultimately became taboo. The western world became educated by the Torah to be sensitive to this particular abomination. But when the world became secularized and religion got demoted to the private sphere of life, and the concept of “two consenting adults” became dominant, the sense of abomination regarding homosexuality eroded and was gradually eliminated from public social conversation.

There is no reason that the same thing couldn’t happen to any of the pagan beliefs or rituals addressed by the Torah. The burden of proof is on the other side to show that certain commandments have become truly obsolete via the historical development of the human personality.

In fact, the Torah has concealed the rationale behind many rituals because they are not intended to be pinned down to any specific objective. Jews have consistently found new meaning in them in every generation and culture and they all may very well have been intended by the Creator --Who saw all its possible effects on the human being throughout the various historical periods in advance.

So, in conclusion, we assert the Torah is not old-fashioned.

It is timeless.

#15 How do we know the Torah is G-d given?

#15 How do we know the Torah is G-d given?

As usual, there are two ways to go about this basic theological question: as an outsider and as an insider.

NOTE: This is not to minimize the need to develop responses to challenges from outsiders. It often helps insiders get reassurance that there are convincing arguments that would persuade an outsider as well.

However, they should not form the bedrock foundation of one’s conviction about the fundamentals. Having one's fundamental axioms of life and existence contingent on the cogency of sophisticated intellectual proofs is not a good recipe for long-term commitment when the going gets tough. The best example of this in history is the defection rate of Spanish Jewry when the tragic choice was given to it to either convert, or be expelled and lose all social and financial status. The community with the most sophisticated intellectual connection to Judaism failed the test, and the community with the most visceral inchoate connection to the tradition remained steadfast.

From the outsider’s perspective we have the unlikely predictions of the Torah which came true and serve as the strongest body of evidence that the Jewish Torah was given by G-d vis-à-vis the alternatives of other religions or atheism.

1) Deuteronomy 28-30 regarding the exile and dispersion and eventual return to the land.

2) Deuteronomy 4 daring us to survey human history to check if any other people even made the claim of open divine mass revelation and mass exodus of one nation from under a dominating nation with open miracles and wonders.

To counter the claim that the Torah was a later myth authored in a later period and attributed to earlier period:

3) The precise chronicled history of all peoples and nations from the very first man.

4) The unusual fact that the Torah documents the military defeats of the nation and personal flaws of its patriarchs and leaders.

5) Lack of anachronistic details in the Torah (lifestyle portrayals, social/political/military conventions, geographical locations) that are a dead giveaway to most other ancient myths projecting backward in time.

From the insider's perspective, we have so much personal experience with the bearers of tradition, that to question the integrity of any link in the chain is rendered a non-sequitir.

#12 How do we know the Tradition is authentic?

#12 How do we know the Tradition is authentic?

We have a problem: The first millennium and a half of Jewish history from the giving of the Written Torah at Sinai (3300 years ago) till the writing of the Mishna (1800 years ago) there are no written explanations/interpretations of the Written Torah on record. Yet Jewish Tradition asserts that whatever the rabbis in the Talmud claim to be the definitive interpretation of the written Torah was in fact received orally by Moshe from G-d and transmitted from master to disciple until the Talmudic era 1500 years later. Do we just accept this assertion simply as a matter of blind faith? Or is there any good reasons to believe that the Oral Tradition is authentic and not just an invention of “Rabbinic Judaism” and falsely attributed to the Biblical era preceding it?

This question can be approached on two levels:

1) For the outsider/skeptic who has no prior experience with Torah learning and wants to have enough reason to take it seriously:

Most skeptics start with the assumption of some kind of “broken telephone” hypothesis: If all that detailed information remained oral for so long a period of time, it must have undergone drastic—if perhaps unconscious—changes.

We can refute this hypothesis with the following lines of argumentation/evidence:

a) The point of departure from the strictly oral transmission to writing down the oral law (by Rabbi Yehudah Hanasi—the redactor of the Mishna) is clearly known and documented including the reasons for this departure and its legal justifications. It is not shrouded in mystery or emerged imperceptibly. It was a conscious decision to start committing the Oral Law into a formal authoritative text which was accepted by all the Jewish sages of that era. The reason given was that the persecutions of the Romans at the time were so severe that the real danger of national loss of memory started to loom large. This implies that the sages were consciously keeping track of how well the oral tradition was being preserved through human memory all along. It was a priority which necessitated a radical change in Jewish learning when the need arose.

If the existence of the oral law until that point in time was gradually unconsciously changing all along, what changed now to suddenly decide to write it down? Why would preservation in writing suddenly become necessary if no serious care was made beforehand to retain the accuracy of the oral information?

b) The points of dispute and the origins of dispute regarding the oral law are very carefully documented in the Talmud. Some disputes are dated back to the Biblical era between kings and their officers and among the prophets. This indicates that great care was taken to preserve not only oral interpretations which everyone agreed to, but even oral disputes which divided earlier generations of scholars. Ex: The mishna records the many disputes between Hillel and Shammai who argued centuries before the Mishna was written.

c) The most basic refutation of the “broken telephone hypothesis” is by challenging the intuitive assumption that masters and their disciples were very informal and casual about transmitting this oral information. There were seven defense mechanisms set up to prevent any mistakes in transmission.

1) constant repetition and thorough review

2) experiential grasp of the information

3) practical implementation of the information in different circumstances

4) multiple chains of transmission which all had to corroborate with each other at the ends of the chains.

5) multiple levels of cross-checking

6) motivation by reward for success and punishment for failure

7) grave and solemn responsibility for all future Jewish history

2) For insiders who are intimately familiar with the Talmud and the character of the sages, we see their integrity and honesty in searching for truth on every page. No faults are hidden, no uncomfortable questions are ignored or avoided. The trust in the sages that their tradition is genuine and accurate is well earned by our own experience of them.

3) The issue of the accuracy of the written Torah can be appreciated by contrast with Christianity’s sacred book- the New Testament.

There are thousands of places where there are alternative readings with differences in meaning. Dozens of those places involve subjects of fundamental theology. And there is even a dispute over which language the original text was written in! And all this ambiguity took place only in 2,000 years since it existed with a central religious authority for most of that time. The origins of Christianity is not well preserved at all.

Contrast this picture with the Chumash—written 3300 years ago and only a dozen variant spellings—which do NOT alter the basic meaning of any word!

In accuracy of written texts, Judaism has an outstanding record.

#10 The problem of Evil

#10 The problem of Evil

· One of the oldest problems in Jewish philosophy

· The existence of Evil in potential is a form of imperfection. Imperfection is inherent in the best possible creation by definition.

· Evil is a necessary tool for spiritual growth and maturity. If there are no evil people than there are no good people. Good qualities are appreciated best and motivated best by contrasting with its opposite.

· God only allows for evil to manifest by suppressing His Justice and Mercy. It is not as severe a problem if God were to commit evil directly.

· The possibility of Evil informs us the fact that God trusts Humanity to overcome temptation. He did not create robots who are incapable of committing evil. Evil is a created power of potential which brings great responsibility to the one who can choose it. It is inextricably bound to free-will

· Why is there free-will to choose evil? See Ramchal—it allows more similarity to the Creator because you can generate your own goodness and allows reception of the greatest good.