What a great debate

Watch and Listen to this debate!

A Book worth reading

I have just finished my first reading (as you know I read all worthwhile books more than once) of The Moral Landscape.
His main thesis is that just because that there are no answers in practice does not mean that there are no answers in principle.
This is really his basic point.

This confirms the findings in another recommended book, In Search of Memory by Eric Kandel.
Brain research is in such an early stage. I would say it is just like at the time of the first telegraph in 1837, when we still had a long way to go before the telegraph developed into today’s smart-phone.
But Harris’ basic point that there is, in principle, no differences between facts and values. It is very counterintuitive but it is counterintuitive only because we have been taught, since infancy, that facts and values are separate. Is it a fact or a value statement that so called Honor Killings (after a woman has been raped) in the name of their religion is wrong?!
Liberals say: “Well, that’s a part of their culture, we cannot condemn (or condone) such a ‘tradition’”
Harris’ point is that if Moral Behavior aims to enhance the lives of conscious beings, one can definitely say that Honor Killings are immoral. And of course he has many other examples in the book.

I hope you read it and that you appreciated it as much as I did and that you see the similarities with Kandel’s book.

This is a great Book - Watch the short interview with the author

A Great new book

See this interview.

It is simply not true!

You hear statements that "sound" good but they are simply not true. A case in point: (actually two):

1. People say that in spite of our technical and technological progress, human nature is pretty much the same as in the days of when the Bible was written. 'Nothing new under the sun', kind of sentiment.
This is factually false.

2. Regardless of what people say, "we get our moral standards from the Bible", this is completely incorrect.


First statement:
In the old days when 100% of people's perception of the world was influenced by the religion they belonged to, whether it was the Vikings in the North or tribes in Indonesia, everything around a person was seen through the eyes of religion. So, for instance, in the Nordic countries it was believed that the God Thor was hammering in heaven and that created thunder. In Central and South America, as later a as few centuries ago, child-sacrifices were acceptable gifts to the gods to keep these gods happy and create a good harvest. As recent as 150 ago years in this country, slavery was accepted.
The more the circle of areas where religion lost influence increased, the narrower area of life that was controlled by religion, the more scientific progress taught us how the world works (no, it is not the God Thor who is causing thunder), the better we function: It is better NOT to perform child-sacrifice to the gods, than to do it, it is better to treat people as equals than as slaves, and so on.
Thinking that these realization do not have an effect on our "psyche" is simply wrong. Progress in neuro research. see for instance, "In Search of Memory" by Nobel winner Eric Kandel, clearly show how our brain has developed and how even things like compassion, selflessness and many other "non-technological" traits have changed over the course of history.
Thinking that we now know "everything there is to know" about the human consciousness, is, to the say least arrogant.

Second Statement:
One does NOT get one’s morality, one’s sense of what is right or what is wrong from the Torah.
How do we know that we do not get our morals from the Bible?
Well, when a young girl gets married and is NOT stoned to death because she is not a virgin on her wedding day, we have already made a determination that this is not the proper way to go. In other words, before we even OPEN the Books of the Torah, we know that stoning someone to death for not being a virgin on her wedding day is wrong; therefore, the Torah is NOT,
de facto, the guide we use to determine what is right and what is wrong. And orthodox and other apologists would say, “yeah, but times have changed and we have adjusted to the times we live in!” – Yeah, exactly, and we have found other tools to judge right and wrong with. That’s the whole point.

In my opinion.

Belief vs. paralysis of faith

An interesting article in
See link

A thought provoking letter to the Kansas School Board

We urge you to read this letter sent to the Kansas School Board
You can find it here. Enjoy!

Brain research

I am reading (for the third time….) this very interesting book. Here is a quote from it, which that made me think of you:

The human brain runs first-class simulation software. Our eyes don’t present to our brains a faithful photograph of what is out there, or an accurate movie of what is going on through time. Our brains construct a continuously updated model: updated by coded pulses chattering along the optic nerve, but constructed nevertheless. Optical illusions are vivid reminders of this.

I am not telling you, at this point, who the author is or the name of the book. Only because the author and the book title may prejudice you against the content of the quote. If you have any comments, agree, or disagree or any other comments, please let me know.
Researching these things – which took a giant leap after having read “In Search of Memory” by Eric Kandel - thanks for the tip - is what really put spices in the dish of life.

Hope you are enjoying the hot summer….

Looking forward to hearing from you.

B’Shalom,

Richard
St. Louis
PS. One clue: The author of the above quote is a biologist.

To all my agnostic friends

Scientists distinguish between 2 types of agnosticism, TAP and PAP. TAP, or Temporary Agnosticism in Practice, is defined as a reasonable “fence-sitting” until more evidence is in, like the study of various ages of the pre-human history. It is OK and acceptable to say: “I am agnostic about this or that step in the pre-human evolution. Evidence is still pouring in”. That is being temporary agnostic, a condition that will be “cured” once the proof is in.

The other type, PAP, Permanent Agnosticism in Principle, is the type where we cannot answer a question no matter how much evidence we gather. An example of this (and again, one must be careful when using the term “forever”) is the way I see a color: I can see a red dot and you can see the same dot, but your brain interprets as green or as any other color combination. Philosophers cite this example as one that cannot be answered, at least not yet. Think about it, there is no conceivable way for me to “get inside your brain” and see that dot the way you see it.

Now when it comes to God, there is a lot of people who place the existence of God in the PAP category: “We’ll never know”. But to understand the background one has to be aware what people just 100-150 years ago considered “We’ll never know” types of facts.

What would be like for man to walk on the moon? We’ll never know. (We do now)
What is the biological and chemical makeup of stars far, far way? We’ll never know. (We do now).
Let’s back up further: The God Thor, in Nordic mythology is the one that causes thunder. Skeptics said: “Well. We’ll never know if that is true or not” – we do now!

Back even further: If we perform this particular dance, the rain god will be pleased and rain will fall. Are we agnostic about the truth value in that statement?

Bertrand Rusell’s parable about the china teapot revolving around the sun is so telling:

If I were suggest that such a teapot exists nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even with the most powerful telescopes. BUT, if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought of as talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or the Inquisitor in an earlier time. It is customary to suppose that, if a belief is widespread, there must be something reasonable about it.

So, to my agnostic friends, the question you must ask yourself, is this: are you a china teapot agnostics or are you an a-teapotist? The former is supported by the fact that we cannot know, for sure, that Russell’s China Tea Pot does not exist. But in Practice – we would most likely all be a-teapotsits.

Draw your own conclusions! And please submit your comments here!

The Funeral of Rabbi Bernie Lipnick

Please take a few minutes (!) to view and listen to the funeral of Rabbi Bernie Lipnick. It is an experience. Just click here and have a lot of patience. But it is worth your time

A discussion on the roots of the Jewish culture

When talking about the Documentary Hypothesis, some people feel that this a controversial view.
Of course, for me, this way of looking at the source of Torah is not controversial at all, in fact, that is the only way to realistically look at it. As many have pointed out, it does not make the text less “sacred”.
The sacredness comes from the fact that a people has believed this for 2500 yrs and continued the tradition, although it has changed a lot,
So, the answer to the question: “How come the Jewish people/culture has survived when the Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, and Roman and other cultures have died?” is what? The ability to adjust? The belief in a monotheistic God? Some orthodox would say “it is that monotheistic God who sustained us”. My thinking is since the existence of a monotheistic God is controversial (to put it mildly, thousands of years of wars and millions of dead in “his name”) a more general statement can be made that is “easier” to "prove":
“The Jewish people has survived all those other cultures because of a continuous belief in a Monotheistic God”
Note. This statement does not address the existence or non-existence of God. It merely states that the belief in such a God, in itself, has helped sustain this people/culture.