Kingdom of Priests

Kingdom of Priests


A “Lapsed Heretic,” Rabbi Sacks on Secularism and Modernity

posted by David Klinghoffer
On the rare occasion it happens, it’s inspiring to catch a rabbi in the act of being what a Jewish religious leader should be — namely a cohen or priest seeking to confront the world with the Torah’s image of what we all could be. 
It’s possible to kvell over the British chief rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, for relatively superficial reasons — his Oxbridge education and manners, the gloss of secular learning and worldliness that comes from being, as he puts it,  “a lapsed heretic” who gave up philosophy in favor of Judaism because philosophy at the time disdained the human need for ultimate meaning. You can also appreciate, as I do, the amazingly beautiful new edition of the Jewish prayer book, the Sacks Siddur, that he translated and commented upon for the Jerusalem publisher Koren.
More important about Rabbi Sacks is his incisive critique of secularism. A case in point would be a major speech he gave recently. I’ve alluded to it before based on a brief news article but have now read it in full. It’s a stunner.
Delivered to a public theology think tank in England, Theos, the 2009 Annual Theos Lecture, “Religion in Twenty-First Century Britain,” is not some angry diatribe against modernity. Nor is it only about Britain, or about Europe. Americans may not be as far down the road to nihilism and despair as Europeans are but we are making strides to catch up. Genial, charming yet forthright and unapologetic, Sacks states his case that it is religious culture that stands in defense of civilization from barbarism.
As frequently comes out in his writing, he’s a huge admirer of American democracy. Sacks mentions that he has a custom of reading Tocqueville on a yearly basis and quotes the French aristocrat and America-observer on the place of faith in a free society:

Liberty…considers religion as the safeguard of morality and morality as the best security of law and the surest pledge of the duration of freedom.

Sacks notes that “we would expect any society in which religion declines, in that society, civil society would decline. Families would become fragile, marriages would decline, communities would atrophy, society would cease to have a shared morality. And by those tests, 100 years later, Tocqueville got it exactly right.”

The test is Europe which, thanks to sub-zero population growth, is increasingly overrun by Islamic immigrants hostile to Western ideals. As in the United States where the most liberal, secular cities are also the most childless, where people have cats and dogs instead of kids, Europeans can’t see how parenthood with its sacrifices could possibly suit their jaded, leisured lifestyles.
Sacks cites the Greek historian Polybius who lamented the declining birthrate among his countrymen compared to that of rising Rome. “Europe is dying,” says Rabbi Sacks, just as classical Greek civilization was then — the 3rd century BCE, a time that was “intellectually the closest to our own — the century of the skeptics and the Epicureans and the cynics.” Polybius noted, “[T]he people of Hellas had entered upon the false path of ostentation, avarice and laziness, and were therefore becoming unwilling to marry, or if they did marry, to bring up the children born to them; the majority were only willing to bring up at most one or two.” That, of course, sounds hauntingly familiar.
One might add that Polybius attributed Rome’s growing strength to the public respect given to religion. The situation had reversed itself within a few centuries. With Christianity beginning to stir as a new faith in Europe, pagan Romans had succumbed to unbelief. In The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Gibbon pointed to the “contagion of…skeptical writings” then popular, the “secret contempt” for the old religion, so that even “the [common] people, when they discovered that their deities were rejected and derided by those whose rank or understanding they were accustomed to reverence, were filled with doubts and apprehensions concerning the truth of those doctrines.” 
The Roman birth rate took a long plunge, and the stage was set for the new religion, imported from the Levant, to take the place of the old. This too should sound familiar.
We face our own barbarians out of the East and a new contagion of fashionable writings that corrode faith. Rabbi Sacks frankly states, “The major assault on religion today comes from the neo-Darwinians.” Sacks is no Scriptural literalist, but he sees that trying to explain how complex life developed without reference to God is an invitation to atheism. He identifies as an “imperative for the future” the need of religion to make clear the “deeply religious implications” of true science. He gives DNA and the genome as an example and recommends to his audience a book I know well, Why Us?, by the Darwin-doubting British physician James Le Fanu.
The speech is one that I can imagine no American or Israeli rabbi delivering.
Which, perhaps, is less the fault of rabbis than of the rest of us. Sacks notes at one point that he has the opportunity to address regularly a very broad audience, almost entirely non-Jewish, when he delivers talks on BBC radio. He observes, perhaps exaggerating, that no Jew has spoken about his faith to such an audience since the days of Jonah.
Jonah, he jokes, had to say only five words to the Gentile people of Nineveh to prompt their repentance whereas the prophets like Isaiah and Jeremiah “spent their whole lives preaching to Jews and nobody listened for a moment! ‘Who is this guy?’ So there we are.” Neither truer, no sadder, words on the subject could be spoken. 


Advertisement
Comments read comments(16)
post a comment
Ray Ingles

posted January 20, 2010 at 10:02 am


There’s two issues with this. First, of course, even if religion has salutary effects – even if it has effects necessary for the maintenance of society – that has no actual bearing on whether or not it’s true.
Even C.S. Lewis, the noted Christian apologist, recognized this. “Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of Heaven as a short cut to the nearest chemist’s shop… You see the little rift? ‘Believe this, not because it is
true, but for some other reason’. That’s the game.”
Second, of course, it’s not quite so clear that religion is the only possible “safeguard of morality”. Most theists recognize, for example, that it’s entirely possible for atheists to be good, do good, and contribute very well to society.
So long as we’re quoting people discussing the founding of America, let me quote Washington’s farewell address, where he makes similar claims to Tocqueville, with an important difference: “And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”
Of course, once upon a time literacy was for the privileged few. Universal literacy was once thought of as a hopeless, impractical fancy. Thankfully, in many places it’s pretty close to a reality today. What if the right kind of education can have “influence” on even minds not of a special structure?



report abuse
 

Philip Koplin

posted January 20, 2010 at 10:21 am


David
On the relation of religion to morality, in a 2004 LA Times piece entitled “What We Bush Voters Share: In God We Trust,” you wrote,
“We know what’s right because God or his earthly agents inform us through objective revelation or tradition. … A believer in objective morality accepts the right of established religious tradition—as revealed in a book (the Bible, the Talmud or the Koran) or in the decision of an ordained religious hierarchy—to define right and wrong.”
What is an “objective” revelation or tradition? Surely, it can’t just be one that claims to be. Believing that something is objective doesn’t automatically make it so. In particular, by what criteria do we judge that a supposed message from God is objective truth rather than fallible private intuition; that someone who claims to be God’s earthly agent and to have received an objective revelation actually is and actually has; or that a tradition that claims to be transmitting objective truth really is?
According to your statement, a believer in objective morality would seem to have no choice but to accept as true any definition of right and wrong that issues from any established religious tradition (and not just those based on Bible, Talmud, or Koran). How does granting conflicting traditions (and the differing denominations within them) the right to make “objective” moral judgments differ from moral relativism?



report abuse
 

Daniel Mann

posted January 20, 2010 at 2:10 pm


Phillip,
I think that there are many compelling reasons to conclude that the Hebrew Scriptures are the revelation from God. For one thing, they include teachings that we humans would never give – teachings that run counter to our inclinations and agendas. Just to mention one example – these Scriptures present Israel, the Chosen people of God, along with the Patriarchs in such a negative light. Israel never would have invented such disclosures. (Please see my latest post at http://www.MannsWord.blogspot.com for more such evidence.)



report abuse
 

Steve

posted January 20, 2010 at 3:26 pm


1. David wrote: “It’s possible to kvell over the British chief rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, for relatively superficial reasons — his Oxbridge education and manners, the gloss of secular learning and worldliness that comes from being, as he puts it, ‘a lapsed heretic’ who gave up philosophy in favor of Judaism because philosophy at the time disdained the human need for ultimate meaning.”
David, what do you mean by “ultimate meaning?”
Here is what Sacks said in the speech you linked to on the subject of the search for meaning, “I gave up philosophy because at that particular time when I was studying it, Philosophy had declared as a matter of principle that the search for meaning is in itself meaningless. And because we cannot, to remain human, give up that search for meaning, I gave up philosophy instead.” I wonder what year he gave up philosophy. There have been times (for instance, between the world wars) when many philosophers (for instance, AJ Ayer) would have claimed that any claim that X has “ultimate meaning” is not cognitively meaningful. First, I disagree with Ayer, though I don’t know if I want to get into the issue now. Second, Ayer (and other logical positivists and philosophers of language) were very interested in language meaning and believed that some propositions had meaning. So, Ayer believed that some things had meaning. Finally, you said, “philosophy at the time disdained the human need for ultimate meaning.” You are assuming that all humans “need” “ultimate meaning.” What do you man by “ultimate meaning?” If you explain what you mean in more detail by that term, it may help me determine whether it is something that all humans “need.”
2. I read part of Sacks’ speech. He seems to be claiming that religion still exists because “homo-sapiens are a meaning-seeking animal.” Here is an exact quote: “So why has religion survived? The answer is – to cut through several volumes of potential literature – that homo-sapiens is the meaning-seeking animal.” Perhaps most humans are “meaning-seeking animals,” though I’m not sure if some of the people I went to high school with would fit in that category. And suppose that most humans being “meaning-seeking animals” is one cause of the existence of religion. However, I’m not particularly interested in the causes for the existence of religion; I’m interested in whether certain claims are warranted or known to be true. Many beliefs that are widespread among human beings are known to be false. For instance, many people believe that the universe is less than 10,000 years old and that the sun revolves around the earth. Thus, that a belief is widespread isn’t important to whether I am warranted in accepting that the belief is true.
3. David wrote: “Sacks notes that ‘we would expect any society in which religion declines, in that society, civil society would decline. Families would become fragile, marriages would decline, communities would atrophy, society would cease to have a shared morality. And by those tests, 100 years later, Tocqueville got it exactly right.’”
I certainly would not expect that a decline in religion would result in a decline in civil society. Most every non-religious person I know is a good, ethical person with good or reasonably good critical thinking skills. I’m an atheist, and I’m an ethical person. Nearly everyone in my family is an atheist, and they are all ethical and all good critical thinkers.
4. David wrote: “The test is Europe which, thanks to sub-zero population growth, is increasingly overrun by Islamic immigrants hostile to Western ideals. As in the United States where the most liberal, secular cities are also the most childless, where people have cats and dogs instead of kids, Europeans can’t see how parenthood with its sacrifices could possibly suit their jaded, leisured lifestyles.”
What do you mean by “Europe?” Do you mean the European Union? According to the World CIA Factbook, the EU grew by .11 percent in 2008. Here is a link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate
And, according to World CIA Factbook, many European countries, including many that some consider to be less religious, saw the size of their populations increase in 2008. For instance, France grew by .57 percent and Norway grew by .35 percent. Also, it likely would be very good for the world population to decrease some within the next 50 years. We have very limited resources and space relative to the number of people that we have. So, it is good that some country’s populations are growing at a slow rate, not growing at all or shrinking. It will make it easier for the inhabitants of the world to have all the resources that they need to flourish.
5. David wrote: “Sacks is no Scriptural literalist, but he sees that trying to explain how complex life developed without reference to God is an invitation to atheism. He identifies as an ‘imperative for the future’ the need of religion to make clear the ‘deeply religious implications’ of true science. He gives DNA and the genome as an example and recommends to his audience a book I know well, Why Us?, by the Darwin-doubting British physician James Le Fanu.”
First, what reason is there to believe that “trying to explain how complex life developed without reference to God is an invitation to atheism?” It is logically consistent to believe that no God proximately caused any event on earth over the last 4 billion years and to believe that some Gods exist. The two claims have different meanings. And, for the sake of argument, let’s say that “trying to explain how complex life developed without reference to God is an invitation to atheism?” What’s wrong with that? — assuming, of course, that the belief that there are no Gods is reasonable. And I think it is. I’ve never experienced anything remotely similar to a God. Similarly, I haven’t experienced anything remotely similar to a fairy.



report abuse
 

Steve

posted January 20, 2010 at 3:29 pm


1. David wrote: “It’s possible to kvell over the British chief rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, for relatively superficial reasons — his Oxbridge education and manners, the gloss of secular learning and worldliness that comes from being, as he puts it, ‘a lapsed heretic’ who gave up philosophy in favor of Judaism because philosophy at the time disdained the human need for ultimate meaning.”
David, what do you mean by “ultimate meaning?”
Here is what Sacks said in the speech you linked to on the subject of the search for meaning, “I gave up philosophy because at that particular time when I was studying it, Philosophy had declared as a matter of principle that the search for meaning is in itself meaningless. And because we cannot, to remain human, give up that search for meaning, I gave up philosophy instead.” I wonder what year he gave up philosophy. There have been times (for instance, between the world wars) when many philosophers (for instance, AJ Ayer) would have claimed that any claim that X has “ultimate meaning” is not cognitively meaningful. First, I disagree with Ayer, though I don’t know if I want to get into the issue now. Second, Ayer (and other logical positivists and philosophers of language) were very interested in language meaning and believed that some propositions had meaning. So, Ayer believed that some things had meaning. Finally, you said, “philosophy at the time disdained the human need for ultimate meaning.” You are assuming that all humans “need” “ultimate meaning.” What do you man by “ultimate meaning?” If you explain what you mean in more detail by that term, it may help me determine whether it is something that all humans “need.”
2. I read part of Sacks’ speech. He seems to be claiming that religion still exists because “homo-sapiens are a meaning-seeking animal.” Here is an exact quote: “So why has religion survived? The answer is – to cut through several volumes of potential literature – that homo-sapiens is the meaning-seeking animal.” Perhaps most humans are “meaning-seeking animals,” though I’m not sure if some of the people I went to high school with would fit in that category. And suppose that most humans being “meaning-seeking animals” is one cause of the existence of religion. However, I’m not particularly interested in the causes for the existence of religion; I’m interested in whether certain claims are warranted or known to be true. Many beliefs that are widespread among human beings are known to be false. For instance, many people believe that the universe is less than 10,000 years old and that the sun revolves around the earth. Thus, that a belief is widespread isn’t important to whether I am warranted in accepting that the belief is true.
3. David wrote: “Sacks notes that ‘we would expect any society in which religion declines, in that society, civil society would decline. Families would become fragile, marriages would decline, communities would atrophy, society would cease to have a shared morality. And by those tests, 100 years later, Tocqueville got it exactly right.’”
I certainly would not expect that a decline in religion would result in a decline in civil society. Most every non-religious person I know is a good, ethical person with good or reasonably good critical thinking skills. I’m an atheist, and I’m an ethical person. Nearly everyone in my family is an atheist, and they are all ethical and all good critical thinkers.
4. David wrote: “The test is Europe which, thanks to sub-zero population growth, is increasingly overrun by Islamic immigrants hostile to Western ideals. As in the United States where the most liberal, secular cities are also the most childless, where people have cats and dogs instead of kids, Europeans can’t see how parenthood with its sacrifices could possibly suit their jaded, leisured lifestyles.”
What do you mean by “Europe?” Do you mean the European Union? According to the World CIA Factbook, the EU grew by .11 percent in 2008. You can google “countries ranked by population growth rates” and click on the first link that appears.
And, according to World CIA Factbook, many European countries, including many that some consider to be less religious, saw the size of their populations increase in 2008. For instance, France grew by .57 percent and Norway grew by .35 percent. Also, it likely would be very good for the world population to decrease some within the next 50 years. We have very limited resources and space relative to the number of people that we have. So, it is good that some country’s populations are growing at a slow rate, not growing at all or shrinking. It will make it easier for the inhabitants of the world to have all the resources that they need to flourish.
5. David wrote: “Sacks is no Scriptural literalist, but he sees that trying to explain how complex life developed without reference to God is an invitation to atheism. He identifies as an ‘imperative for the future’ the need of religion to make clear the ‘deeply religious implications’ of true science. He gives DNA and the genome as an example and recommends to his audience a book I know well, Why Us?, by the Darwin-doubting British physician James Le Fanu.”
First, what reason is there to believe that “trying to explain how complex life developed without reference to God is an invitation to atheism?” It is logically consistent to believe that no God proximately caused any event on earth over the last 4 billion years and to believe that some Gods exist. The two claims have different meanings. And, for the sake of argument, let’s say that “trying to explain how complex life developed without reference to God is an invitation to atheism?” What’s wrong with that? — assuming, of course, that the belief that there are no Gods is reasonable. And I think it is. I’ve never experienced anything remotely similar to a God. Similarly, I haven’t experienced anything remotely similar to a fairy.



report abuse
 

Steve

posted January 20, 2010 at 3:37 pm


David, I’m going to break my post into parts because the entire post isn’t posting. Here is the first part:
David wrote: “It’s possible to kvell over the British chief rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, for relatively superficial reasons — his Oxbridge education and manners, the gloss of secular learning and worldliness that comes from being, as he puts it, ‘a lapsed heretic’ who gave up philosophy in favor of Judaism because philosophy at the time disdained the human need for ultimate meaning.”
David, what do you mean by “ultimate meaning?”
Here is what Sacks said in the speech you linked to on the subject of the search for meaning, “I gave up philosophy because at that particular time when I was studying it, Philosophy had declared as a matter of principle that the search for meaning is in itself meaningless. And because we cannot, to remain human, give up that search for meaning, I gave up philosophy instead.” I wonder what year he gave up philosophy. There have been times (for instance, between the world wars) when many philosophers (for instance, AJ Ayer) would have claimed that any claim that X has “ultimate meaning” is not cognitively meaningful. First, I disagree with Ayer, though I don’t know if I want to get into the issue now. Second, Ayer (and other logical positivists and philosophers of language) were very interested in language meaning and believed that some propositions had meaning. So, Ayer believed that some things had meaning. Finally, you said, “philosophy at the time disdained the human need for ultimate meaning.” You are assuming that all humans “need” “ultimate meaning.” What do you man by “ultimate meaning?” If you explain what you mean in more detail by that term, it may help me determine whether it is something that all humans “need.”



report abuse
 

Philip Koplin

posted January 20, 2010 at 5:28 pm


Daniel
First, all of the world’s moral codes give “teachings that run counter to our inclinations and agenda,” so that isn’t an argument in favor of any given one of them in particular having been issued by God.
Second, the Hebrew Bible presents the Chosen People in a sometimes negative light because it treats history in light of theological ideals so as to draw lessons from the discrepancy between people’s behavior (which it could hardly falsify or whitewash, given its implicit claim to be grounded in historical reality) and how it claims God wants people to behave. This shows nothing about the supposed objectivity of those claims.
I’ll try to look at your blog when I have some additional time, but in any event such arguments are irrelevant to the questions I raised to David, whose original comments seem to place all sacred writings on an equal footing with regard to their right to claim objectivity for their values, with the paradoxical effect of rendering objectivity relative.



report abuse
 

David Klinghoffer

posted January 20, 2010 at 5:32 pm


Steve, as before, I encourage you to compose your thoughts briefly in one place. I get confused by all the multiple repetitive postings by you and I won’t publish them all. Be concise, please! Other people are more likely to read you that way.



report abuse
 

Steve

posted January 20, 2010 at 8:21 pm


David, I’m sorry about the multiple postings of the same message. The first times I posted the message the message didn’t go through, and I got a message from the blog that there was a problem with my post and that it didn’t go through. So, I posted the message again. It still didn’t go through. So, then I tried to break the message into parts. Finally, my first few posts did show up. So, I stopped.
You might want to look at the blog to see what is wrong with the posting mechanisms.
Please delete all but my first post in this thread.
Thanks



report abuse
 

Steve Shay

posted January 20, 2010 at 10:00 pm


Steve (another Steve, not me) says:
“What do you mean by “Europe?” Do you mean the European Union? According to the World CIA Factbook, the EU grew by .11 percent in 2008.”
——————————————————————————
I find it is complicated to site accurate population statistics in Europe. For example, the population growth of non-Islamic Europeans is about 1.7 children born to every couple. Because of the influx of Muslim immigrants, and their cultural proclivity to have more children than other European populations, the actual birth rates in Europe rises. And as more Muslims immigrate from the Middle East and Africa to Europe, the birth rate will rise accordingly.
Geert Wilders, the Dutch member of Parliament, forecasts an “out of control” Muslim population (and conversion) within Europe. He is considered by many to be an extremist and his statistics are, in my opinion (and snopes.com) exaggerated for effect, but I believe his basic premise is sound.



report abuse
 

Steve

posted January 21, 2010 at 1:10 am


Steve Shay, thanks for the response. Given what I know (and I’m not an expert on determining population growth rates), I don’t think it is especially difficult to determine the population growth rates for Western European countries. These countries have reliable reporting of births and deaths.
Moreover, for the sake of argument, let’s say that the population of these countries is increasing only because of relatively high birth rates among recent immigrants. To the extent that it is possible, all births by recent immigrants should be included in a country’s population growth rate. It is fairly easy to do. It guarantees that we will have a reasonably accurate tally of the world’s population. And the number of people who live in a given country significantly affects what the inhabitants of the country are able to do. For instance, if Costa Rica’s population were to increase by 20 million people over the next five years, it would significantly affect the lives of all or most of the citizens of Costa Rica.
Also, here is a link to the United Nations’ database [i]World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision Population Database[/i]:
http://esa.un.org/UNPP/index.asp?panel=1
You can find out each country’s population growth rate. One nice feature is that the UN provides its projection for each country’s population up until the year 2050. Simply click on “country profile” on the left side of the page. It is the third heading listed. Then you can click on any county and then click on “display.” For instance, right now Norway’s population is 4.8 million people. The UN projects that in 2050 Norway’s population will be 5.9 million people.
Unfortunately, the UN’s database doesn’t provide population growth rates for the European Union as a whole.
On a different note, it is very important for many, if not most, countries to try to limit their population growth rates. Please see a previous post of mine. Nevertheless, I obviously strongly disagree with China’s one child policy. What is important instead is that people (including women) are educated about contraception and family planning and that women are educated overall and have opportunities to engage in various kinds of work and activities, for instance, sports. These conditions help reduce population growth rates.



report abuse
 

Ray Ingles

posted January 21, 2010 at 8:37 am


The notion of “ultimate meaning” is ultimately incoherent. Let me quote this insightful passage from the Bad Idea Blog ( http://badidea.wordpress.com/2007/09/27/the-meaning-of-meaning-why-theism-cant-make-life-matter/ )

To say that some event means something without at least some implicit understanding of who it means something to is to express an incomplete idea, no different than sentence fragments declaring that “Went to the bank” or “Exploded.” Without first specifying a particular subject and/or object, the very idea of meaning is incoherent.

Yet too often people still try to think of meaning in a disconnected and abstract sense, ending up at bizarre and nonsensical conclusions. They ask questions like: What is the meaning of my life? What does it matter if I love my children when I and they and everyone that remembers us will one day not exist? But these are not simply deep questions without answers: they are incomplete questions, incoherent riddles missing key lines and clues. Whose life? Meaningful to whom? Matters to whom? Who are you talking about?

Once those clarifying questions are asked and answered, the seeming impossibility of the original question evaporates, its flaws exposed. We are then left with many more manageable questions: What is the meaning of my/your/their life to myself/my parents/my children? These different questions may have different answers: your parents may see you as a disappointment for becoming a fireman instead of a doctor, and yet your children see you as a hero.



report abuse
 

Mark2

posted January 21, 2010 at 12:45 pm


Ray, are you sure that if there were a God, the question of “what is the ultimate meaning of life (or my life)” would still be ultimately incoherent?



report abuse
 

Daniel Mann

posted January 22, 2010 at 7:43 am


Philip,
The evidence that the Hebrew Scriptures reflect Divine guidance is really profound. Let me give you a few more of these evidences that I was reading about in Leviticus 25:
1. Israelites were forbidden to plant their land in the seventh year. Instead, they would have to eat what grew without cultivation from their plots – a harrowing existence! What ruling class would ever propose such legislation? Instead the leadership would have every reason in the world to maximize production.
2. Every 50 years, land that had been sold would return to the original ownership, thereby preventing the formation of a rich and powerful upper class and a permanent underclass. I know of no such legislation among the legal statutes of the nations.
3. In another place, all Israelite men were to congregate in Jerusalem on three lengthy occasions yearly. Such a requirement would leave any nation vulnerable to attack. However, God assured Israel not to worry about this vulnerability because He would protect her during such times.
Philip, you are clearly unimpressed by these types of anomalous evidences. However, I’d suggest that you should try to come up with similar teachings in other religions. I think you will find them to be non-existent.



report abuse
 

Philip Koplin

posted January 22, 2010 at 3:47 pm


Daniel
Of what is any of this supposed to be evidence, other than that the people who codified the laws of ancient Israel often had reasons you find counterintuitive? Your underlying logic seems to be that if you can’t find a sound principle behind a religion’s teachings, that makes it likelier that those teachings came from God, which would make a religion like that of the Mayans that practiced human sacrifice the likeliest of all.



report abuse
 

Daniel Mann

posted January 25, 2010 at 11:24 am


Philip,
I just think that we must follow the eivdence wherever it might lead. Here, the evidence is pointing to a Divine authorship for many reason.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Kingdom of Priests. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Kabballah Counseling Happy Reading!

posted 11:24:22am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Animal Wisdom: The Voice of the Serpent
Our family watched Jaws together the other evening -- which, in case you're wondering, I regard as responsible parenting since our kids are basically too young to be genuinely scared by the film. The whole rest of the next day, two-year-old Saul was chattering about the "shark teeth." "Shark teeth g

posted 3:56:33pm Mar. 16, 2010 | read full post »

Reading Wesley Smith: Why the Darwin Debate Matters
If the intelligent-design side in the evolution debate doesn't receive the support you might expect from people who should be allies, that may be because they haven't grasped why the whole thing matters so urgently. I got an email recently from a journalist whom I'd queried on the subject. "All told

posted 5:07:12pm Mar. 15, 2010 | read full post »

The Mission of the Jews
Don't miss my essay over at First Things on the mission of the Jews to the world. This, I think, the key idea that the Jewish community needs to absorb at this very unusual cultural moment, for the time is so, so right. Non-Jews are waiting for us to fulfill the roll God gave us in the Torah. Please

posted 6:14:16pm Mar. 05, 2010 | read full post »

Darwin at the Mountains of Madness: Evolution & the Occult
Of all the regrettable cultural forces that Darwinism helped unleash, perhaps the most surprising and seemingly unlikely is its role in sparking the creation of modern occultism. Charles Darwin himself could not have been less interested in the topic. But no attempt to assess the scope of his legacy

posted 2:04:11pm Mar. 04, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.