You chatted about Leviticus. I want a specific metric, void of confirmation bias, that allows nme to acknowledge evolution as truth and reject Orthodox Judaism as lies.TheTrendyCynic said:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Religion: Evolution Of The Perfect Lie
- Thread starter TheTrendyCynic
- Start date
TheTrendyCynic
Member
I 'chatted' about Leviticus? We need an rolling-eyes smiley. 
My defense of the evolution of Orthodox Judaism is whole. It may not be complete yet -- hopefully you'll help me refine it as you attempt to refute it -- but I'm happy with that defense. It's not my turn to 'better' explain it when you haven't given me a flaw that needs to be reconciled; I have no idea what it is you want, and currently, any further discussion of Orthodox Judaism would be me repeating what I just said.
Don't tell me what you want. Tell me what is wrong with what I presented. Why is what I wrote unsatisfactory? Why does it not support the idea that Orthodox Judaism is a lie and evolution is truth? It may be that a specific metric is not necessary to satisfy my thesis; I can't know one way or the other because I am unclear what you mean by specific metric.
I should also add, please remember that I do not have much official philosophy education -- hopefully I'm not frustrating you too much by my inability to understand some of your philosophical terminology.
My defense of the evolution of Orthodox Judaism is whole. It may not be complete yet -- hopefully you'll help me refine it as you attempt to refute it -- but I'm happy with that defense. It's not my turn to 'better' explain it when you haven't given me a flaw that needs to be reconciled; I have no idea what it is you want, and currently, any further discussion of Orthodox Judaism would be me repeating what I just said.
Don't tell me what you want. Tell me what is wrong with what I presented. Why is what I wrote unsatisfactory? Why does it not support the idea that Orthodox Judaism is a lie and evolution is truth? It may be that a specific metric is not necessary to satisfy my thesis; I can't know one way or the other because I am unclear what you mean by specific metric.
I should also add, please remember that I do not have much official philosophy education -- hopefully I'm not frustrating you too much by my inability to understand some of your philosophical terminology.
Show me that Orthodox Judaism has been more more adaptive. The examples you gave are easily attibutable to objective changes.
TheTrendyCynic
Member
Sorry it's taken me so long to respond -- I'm not usually near the computer over the weekend.
So, let's assume that Orthodox Judaism has shown the same ideological stability as evolution, atomism or heliocentricity (if even greater stability). Let me try to make room for this fact in my theory. You decide if I'm bailing water from a doomed ship, or if some of these possibilities are worth looking at further.
1) Anchors Other Than Objective Fact
The 'anchor of truth' I keep referring to is the characteristic of an objectively true idea to resist the influence of social factors; objective facts 'anchor' the idea against the current of societal pressures. It stands to reason that there exist other anchors that serve the same purpose. I know, for example, that Orthodox Judaism holds the contents of the Torah to be divinely inspired and, thus, absolutely true with no room permitted for human failings or interpretation. Perhaps the most important difference between Orthodox Judaism and other branches of Judaism is such strict adherence to the word and letter of the Torah. Logically, this would serve as an anchor against social influence in much the same way that objective fact serves as an anchor for evolution or atomism; the words of the Torah and the intrinsic characteristic of the idea of Orthodox Judaism to follow those words to the letter would be just as immutable as objective fact.
The consequence of this is a broadening of the theory. Instead of merely looking for evidence of social influences and adaptable traits, one must also look for possible elements of the idea that would anchor it against changing. Combining these two elements can provide a wealth of information on the nature and motives behind the idea, still independent of the specific claims the idea is making. In the case of Orthodox Judaism, the fact that 'no deviation from the Torah' is stipulated by the religion would clearly serve as that anchor -- and the theory would be unable to conclude the truth or falsehood of Orthodox Judaism.
For any idea, we're now left with three possible conclusions:
You'll enjoy this one. If the above is untenable, then the theory simply cannot be relied upon to identify objectively true ideas: It will identify objectively false ideas as true if, for whatever reason, they have demonstrated resilience to social pressures. It also cannot be relied upon to identify all objectively false ideas, as some objectively false ideas can resist social pressures.
The theory is still valuable, however: It can identify ideas as false if they demonstrate vulnerability to social pressures. The theory becomes a litmus test for theories that aren't based on objective fact, instead of some foolproof means of differentiating true ideas from false ideas.
3) Limitations Of The Concluding Statement
The theory doesn't claim to be foolproof, only a guideline of strong likelihood as to whether or not ideas are based on objective fact. This theory, if we didn't employ the changes I mentioned above, would conclude 'Orthodox Judaism is likely based on objective fact.' In fact, I do believe this to be a responsible conclusion, at least within the scope of this thread -- the fact that Orthodox Judaism has remained unchanged for thousands of years should serve as evidence that supports its credibility over religions that have proven mutable. Other investigations, however, using other means (burden of proof, scientific study, logical analyses, etc), would still lead towards a rational dismissal of Orthodox Judaism.
4) Orthodox Judaism Is Objectively True
Hey, it's possible
To briefly summarize what the theory now looks like:
Ideas are subject to Darwinian natural selection, a mechanism that works to change ideas in response to societal pressures as they better adapt to their environment. This process is involuntary; ideas will change unless they are prevented from changing by some characteristic intrinsic to the idea -- an anchor -- that holds the idea to some standard other than societal influences. One such anchor is a reliance on objective fact, but other anchors exist.
To apply this theory, study the history of an idea that claims to be objectively true. Look for evidence of vulnerability to social pressures taking the form of adaptive traits. If an idea demonstrates this vulnerability, than it is likely absent of any anchors -- including a reliance on objective fact: The idea is likely not objectively true. If an idea does not demonstrate evidence of natural selection, study the idea for evidence of anchors that may be holding the idea to something other than social pressures. If no anchors can be found, then the idea is likely based on objective fact. Otherwise, no conclusions can be drawn about the idea.
It is clear that you are very familiar with Orthodox Judaism; much more familiar with the faith than I am. You clearly hold that Orthodox Judaism has not changed more than negligibly over the centuries. That would be a statement of fact, not of argument, the truth or falsehood of which easily determinable through research. Given your advanced knowledge of the subject matter, I see no reason to doubt the truth of that claim.Deut. 32.8 said:
So, let's assume that Orthodox Judaism has shown the same ideological stability as evolution, atomism or heliocentricity (if even greater stability). Let me try to make room for this fact in my theory. You decide if I'm bailing water from a doomed ship, or if some of these possibilities are worth looking at further.
1) Anchors Other Than Objective Fact
The 'anchor of truth' I keep referring to is the characteristic of an objectively true idea to resist the influence of social factors; objective facts 'anchor' the idea against the current of societal pressures. It stands to reason that there exist other anchors that serve the same purpose. I know, for example, that Orthodox Judaism holds the contents of the Torah to be divinely inspired and, thus, absolutely true with no room permitted for human failings or interpretation. Perhaps the most important difference between Orthodox Judaism and other branches of Judaism is such strict adherence to the word and letter of the Torah. Logically, this would serve as an anchor against social influence in much the same way that objective fact serves as an anchor for evolution or atomism; the words of the Torah and the intrinsic characteristic of the idea of Orthodox Judaism to follow those words to the letter would be just as immutable as objective fact.
The consequence of this is a broadening of the theory. Instead of merely looking for evidence of social influences and adaptable traits, one must also look for possible elements of the idea that would anchor it against changing. Combining these two elements can provide a wealth of information on the nature and motives behind the idea, still independent of the specific claims the idea is making. In the case of Orthodox Judaism, the fact that 'no deviation from the Torah' is stipulated by the religion would clearly serve as that anchor -- and the theory would be unable to conclude the truth or falsehood of Orthodox Judaism.
For any idea, we're now left with three possible conclusions:
- Likely Based On Objective Fact: The idea shows resilience to social influence and is lacking any anchors, other than objective fact, that could explain this resilience. Atomism and evolution would both satisfy these restrictions.
- Likely Not Based On Objective Fact: The idea demonstrates vulnerability to social pressures, developing expected adaptive traits. Modern Christianity falls into this category.
- Inconclusive: The idea shows resilience to social influence, but also carries anchors other than objective fact that might explain this resilience. Orthodox Judaism would fit here, if it could be argued that 'strict adherence to the Torah' serves as a strong enough anchor against social pressures such that 'objective truth' is not a necessary anchor.
You'll enjoy this one. If the above is untenable, then the theory simply cannot be relied upon to identify objectively true ideas: It will identify objectively false ideas as true if, for whatever reason, they have demonstrated resilience to social pressures. It also cannot be relied upon to identify all objectively false ideas, as some objectively false ideas can resist social pressures.
The theory is still valuable, however: It can identify ideas as false if they demonstrate vulnerability to social pressures. The theory becomes a litmus test for theories that aren't based on objective fact, instead of some foolproof means of differentiating true ideas from false ideas.
3) Limitations Of The Concluding Statement
The theory doesn't claim to be foolproof, only a guideline of strong likelihood as to whether or not ideas are based on objective fact. This theory, if we didn't employ the changes I mentioned above, would conclude 'Orthodox Judaism is likely based on objective fact.' In fact, I do believe this to be a responsible conclusion, at least within the scope of this thread -- the fact that Orthodox Judaism has remained unchanged for thousands of years should serve as evidence that supports its credibility over religions that have proven mutable. Other investigations, however, using other means (burden of proof, scientific study, logical analyses, etc), would still lead towards a rational dismissal of Orthodox Judaism.
4) Orthodox Judaism Is Objectively True
Hey, it's possible
To briefly summarize what the theory now looks like:
Ideas are subject to Darwinian natural selection, a mechanism that works to change ideas in response to societal pressures as they better adapt to their environment. This process is involuntary; ideas will change unless they are prevented from changing by some characteristic intrinsic to the idea -- an anchor -- that holds the idea to some standard other than societal influences. One such anchor is a reliance on objective fact, but other anchors exist.
To apply this theory, study the history of an idea that claims to be objectively true. Look for evidence of vulnerability to social pressures taking the form of adaptive traits. If an idea demonstrates this vulnerability, than it is likely absent of any anchors -- including a reliance on objective fact: The idea is likely not objectively true. If an idea does not demonstrate evidence of natural selection, study the idea for evidence of anchors that may be holding the idea to something other than social pressures. If no anchors can be found, then the idea is likely based on objective fact. Otherwise, no conclusions can be drawn about the idea.