Freethinking Upstart

There has been some renewed discussion, primarily on Hirhurim and the blog of XGH, about the documentary hypothesis. A lot of gibberish about bias in academia and religious folk being forced beyond their better interest into believing the nonsense its religion spews. So let us cut to the quick and bring some of the arguments in favor of the Documentary Hypothesis. I’m not a biblical scholar so I probably won’t be able to help much past this summary of arguments that I put together based on Friedman’s book “The Bible with Sources Revealed.” Littlefoxling has done a lot more work on this so see his blog for more info. Also there is a post by Bruce at threejews.net using the Bayes Theorem arguing in favor of the Documentary Hypothesis here and here. Apparently the Great and mysterious, Mis-Nagid had done a lot of work with the Documentary Hypothesis but his blog is defunct. So without further ado…

1. Linguistics- The language of the Torah is varied. Certain sections can be dated by styles of language that were used at different times. This can help to divide the Torah into sections by the style of the language that they use. The dates of these styles of linguistics are confirmed by texts other then the Torah such as the Dead Sea Scrolls and other documents discovered by archeology.
2. Terminology- Specific words and phrases are used disproportionately in certain sections of text. See here and here for examples. There are many others. These words and phrases help us to divide the text into separate documents.
3. Consistent Content-
1. Revelation of the name YHWH- The name YHWH was used earlier in the text and then suddenly revealed to Moshe in Exodus 6:2,3. Also certain names of God are used almost exclusively in certain sections of the Torah. These sections can be divided into separate sources.
2. Sacred Objects- The Mishkan is dealt with far more in certain sections and never in others. In some sections it is the staff of Moshe Rabeynu that performs miracles but in other's it is Aaron's. There are more examples.
3. Priestly Leadership- The Priests are the leaders of the people in certain sections. Prophets are the main men in other sections. In certain sections only descendants of Aaron are considered priests but in others all Levites are considered priests.
4. Numbers- Certain sections of the Torah are more concerned with numbers (age, then others.
4. Narrative flow- The Torah is very choppy and it repeats and contradicts itself. When divided into separate texts, each text has a better flow then when they remain as they are found in current text.
5. Connections to other parts of the Bible- Certain parts of the Torah seem to match the worldview and message of certain prophets as well as usage of terminologies and linguistics. Certain parts line up with the book of Yirmeyahu, others line up with Yehezqel, Hoshea and the "Court History" sections of the neviim rishonim (early prophets), especially Shmuel Bais, respectively.
6. Relationship to other sections and history- There are many, many examples of this. Certain sections of the Torah refer to geographical areas that were of particular interest to the south (Yehuda) and other sections speak about those of particular interest to the north (Yisrael.) Certain sections are of interest to the time of Hezkiyahu especially in regards to the division between Kohanim and Leviim, that according to Divrei HaYamim 31:2, were instituted by Hezkiyahu, and the centralization of the avodah at Har HaBayis. Other sections of the Torah seem to be connected to the glorious, revolutionary reign of Yoshiyahu. Certain sections of the Torah follow another group of passages, in sequence and differences are significant and point to a message with which certain sections of the Torah are concerned.
7. Convergence- A threefold strand is not quickly broken (Kohelet 4:12) and one with hundreds of connections all the more so. There are many doublets and hundreds of apparent contradictions, that different Rishonim have picked up on and answered according to the best of their knowledge and based on the assumptions that they bring to their commentary on the Torah. But when you divide the text into these separate sections not only do they have a better narrative flow, but their world view and message are coherent, there are almost no contradictions and all the rest of the arguments listed above fit together snugly when the Torah is divided into certain sections.

For more information, you’re going to have to actually study the stuff yourself. Now go learn!

Labels: resources

I need a new name for my online self. FedUp has become a self fulfilling prophecy for me, so I'm working on a new name. FedUp is making me stay a grumpy old man. I might even change the url. We shall see.

I've been having quite a few of those Eureka Moments. More to come.

Labels: rants

I am so grateful to humanity and it's awesome endeavors in science and reason, to the Universe and it's laws that have brought me into existence at this time, the greatest time in history to be alive. It has placed my lot in an affluent country in the 21st Century, where free inquiry has allowed me to find truth in places that were previously locked away by religious censorship. It has allowed me to rise early and stay up late, the freedom to educate myself and better my character. It has given us the technology and free market that give us modern housing and electricity, a free press, free public libraries, and plenty of free time to pursue the finer things in life. Gone are the days when we were forced to live in fear of wrathful invisible deities and their demands on humanity. Gone are the days when we must accept that evil is the will of the Master of the Universe. Gone are the days that we delude ourselves to think that our deities will save us from ourselves.

All we have is ourselves. We must fight for freedom, for justice, for peace. You and I are our only hope.

This post was inspired by the Jewish prayer upon leaving the house of study.

Labels: rants

AHHHH!!!!

What is wrong with people? Am I crazy or is it the world?

Gil Student deleted my comments on his blog again today! And this time I was just asking questions, the type of questions that every yeshiva bochur should ask. They were VERY polite.

Why do people like to believe in lies? If OJ's claims about God and the Torah aren't true, wouldn't you want to know about it? Why do people want to believe in lies so badly that they refuse to even allow questions in regards to that subject?

Avrum68... Quite the character. What can I say about the man? He rants and raves about skeptic bloggers being anonymous, yet who is this anonymous Avrum? I'd be afraid if he should ever find me. From the tone of his comments, I think this man hates me with a passion. And all I do is ask questions and comment on blogs! I do NOT threaten. I ask questions. I do NOT obligate people. I offer critical thought. And for this I get hate?!

Daganev... I can't understand the guy. I try and I try, really I do. But then he starts saying stuff like "Quite the fundamentalist you are," and "Your comments really make me laugh and writhe in pain." Daganev is the type that doesn't agree with anyone, and whenever I tell him that, he starts saying I have a "digital childish mind." How do you have a conversation with someone that you can't make sense of and that insults you if you try?

Rabban Gamiel... I really feel bad about ignoring him but I can't understand what he says either!

Jacob Stein... OY! He's got perhaps the SICKEST view of the world I've ever heard of. He suggests cannibalism and supports genocide... Need I say more?

Yus, aka whatever name he feels like using at that time... Probably the meanest believer that I've ever come in contact with. This man hurls more insults faster then Baal could zap you with thunder bolts and with greater agility then Hermes. Ever confident that he's argued his side beyond refute, this man thinks that loyalty to ideas that probably aren't true is somehow something. But don't say that he said anything because you are definitely misrepresenting him and if not... well I better not say.

Rabbi Joshua Maroof... I think much more highly of him now that I've tried asking questions of other blogger Rabbis. Though I don't know how he could possibly make the claims that he does, he has my respect. He hasn't deleted my comments, even though I asked much more pungent questions to him then I did to Rabbi Gil. Three Cheers for RJM!

Anyhow... I think I'll let off the bans for this post. This post was an emotional reaction to feelings of frustration that I've had recently. Please, don't take anything said here personally.

Labels: rants

Religion is made of up Theology, Mythology, and Virtue.

Tip o' the Hat to Michael Fridman for having an awesome blog with copious amounts of awesome links.

Note: This analogy is made with tongue firmly inserted into cheek.

Labels: religion

Earlier I posted Obama's now two year old speech about religion and politics. I was very impressed. You can read it here.

Recently James Dobson, big mucky muck in the Christian Right, has attacked Obama as "deliberately distorting the Bible," "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter," "willfully trying to confuse people," and having a "fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution." Read about that here.

But now, another Christian named Jim Wallis, a left wing Evangelical leader, is shooting back at Dobson as being un-Christian. That you can read here.

All this sniping is entertaining but the moral of the story is, if Obama can bring his liberal Christianity to this country, we'll be taking a huge leap in the right direction. Tolerance, open mindedness, religion that translates itself to a language that everyone can speak. Change, in which we can believe. Yes. We. Can.

Labels: politics, religion

Nowadays, when someone says that they believe in God you have no idea what the heck they are talking about. Do they mean a higher self, like the New Agers? Do they mean the sky God waiting to zap you, like the Catholics? Do they mean the God that cares if you have ice cream after your burger, like the Orthodox Jews? Or do they mean the It that set off the big bang, never to be heard from again, like Thomas Paine? Or do they mean the laws of the Universe, like Stephen Hawking?

When atheists get all riled up about God, generally they are referring to personal God, one that answers prayers and writes books as a guide for humanity, the one most people believe in.

When atheists get riled up by New Agers it's usually because of their pseudo-scientific methods of healing, like crystals, reiki, and their ideas about psychic powers.

Why do we get upset by these things? Because they are demonstrably false. Prayer doesn't work, and God's books for humanity are a sham. "Alternative Medicine" is like "Intelligent Design," a nice word for a crock of crocodile crap. If it don't work, then it don't work. If it's bunk then it's bunk.

Moving onto the re-definers of the word God... why? I mean if God is energy, or nature, or the laws of the universe, then why used the word God? It's terribly misleading. When most people use the word God, they mean the type that writes books and answers prayers. It's like changing the word Bible to mean the metaphorical book of the best science, ethics, and philosophy currently known to man.

So anyhow, if you believe in a metaphorical higher self, or some ultimate being that started the big bang, or if you like to look at the laws of the Universe, Nature and Energy in a poetic sense, do humanity a favor; don't call it God. It only causes confusion.

Unless of course you can convince everyone else to refer to their gods by their first names. Jews refer to YHWH, Christians to Jesus, Muslims to Allah, and everyone else's mythical all powerful beings by their proper names.

Labels: religion

Q1. How would you define “atheism”?

Not believing in what you know isn't so.

Q2. Was your upbringing religious? If so, what tradition?

Yes. What a long, strange trip it's been.

Q3. How would you describe “Intelligent Design”, using only one word?

Deceit.

Q4. What scientific endeavour really excites you?

Cognitive and Neuroscience, Evolutionary Psychology and any thing else to do with the mind.

Q5. If you could change one thing about the “atheist community”, what would it be and why?

I'd make it integrated into the rest of society. Atheists shouldn't think of themselves as a separate group but as a part of a larger whole of humanity.

Q6. If your child came up to you and said “I’m joining the clergy”, what would be your first response?

I'm still a kid myself so I can't honestly answer that question. I'd imagine I would reach for the nearest bottle and after sobering up, try to reason with him or her.

Q7. What’s your favorite theistic argument, and how do you usually refute it?

"I don't have enough faith to be an atheist." I usually just laugh.

Q8. What’s your most “controversial” (as far as general attitudes amongst other atheists goes) viewpoint?

You know Dawkins scale of belief in God from 1-7? Well if you put Objective Morality on that scale I'd probably be at a 2 or 3. Most people I've talked to about this think I'm delusional. I think they are immoral degenerates. ;-)

Q9. Of the “Four Horsemen” (Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and Harris) who is your favourite, and why?

Dawkins, though I don't know why. Dennet's a bore, Hitchens is a pompous ass, though I stand in awe and envy of his command of the English Language. I really like Harris, his vote for against labels and his vote for meditation.

Q10. If you could convince just one theistic person to abandon their beliefs, who would it be?

Who is the most influential theist? Now or in all of history? I guess I'd pick God if he existed. Tough question... Mohammed? Jesus? Moses? The Pope? Bush? Osama? I can't answer this one.

"True morality, Gora says, is based entirely in the real world. “Because morality is a social necessity, the moment faith in god is banished, man’s gaze turns from god to man and he becomes socially conscious. Religious belief prevented the growth of a sense of realism. But atheism at once makes man realistic and alive to the needs of morality.” [55]"

This is another post in a series with the label "other bible."

As I continued in my journey through the leftover parts of the Bible, I ran into some rare sections of medrash (rabbinic mythology) that gave a novel and rather long creation myth story. I could have sworn that I had read most of this in the Meam Loez commentary on the Creation Myth of the Bible but the Meam Loez quoted some rare medrashim.

The sexism is steep in all these creation myths, but that is par for the course of ancient days. In this medrash, there is this character called Lilith that is given to Adam to wife. But Lilith is not the submissive help mate that a woman is supposed to be so she leaves and Adam is given Eve. According to the medrash, God tried to create a good, submissive wife for Adam but despite all his strivings, she still ended up being a typical woman, some of her faults only coming to fruition later on: Sarah the eavesdropper, Miriam the talebearer, Rachel the envious, and Dinah the gadabout.

But that was just a side note. What really stuck out to me was the character known as the serpent. This medrash says that he became an infidel because of his high intellect. Yes, you read that correctly. Smartness is bound to make you into an infidel, a heretic just like the serpent. Not only that, but after the smart serpent had seduced God's favorite creations to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (notice how knowledge is bad and prohibited yet again) when God goes to curse his creation he doesn't ask for excuses from the serpent. Before cursing Adam, he gets a chance to explain the situation and pass the blame onto his wife. Eve gets the same opportunity but according to this medrash, the smart serpent doesn't get this opportuinity. Why? Because infidels are good debaters. Yes, that's right. Infidels are smart and good debaters according to the medrash. This answers a lot of questions.

Enter the gnostics. The gnostis were a strange bunch. There were pagan, christian and jewish gnostics. They were a crazy mixture of buddhism, ancient persian religion and pagan, christian or jewish respectively.

I couldn't figure out if this was a universal gnostic myth or unique to one particular sect but the gnostics had a pantheon and the creator god Yahweh, was a loser god. Yes, he had the audacity to create a physical world. The other higher gods were disgusted by him because of his attempt to capture knowledge (gnosis) in the physical. The gnostics completely change the creation myth around. The serpent is the hero because he gets them to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So Yahweh, the almighty god in the Jewish myth is the loser in the gnostic versions. The serpent, the intelligent and good debater is evil according to this Jewish myth but the hero in the gnostic one. Maybe gnosticism isn't all that bad.

So anyhow, all you believers be forwarned. Don't get into debates with skeptics, who are the illegitamate offspring of the Evil Serpent. Just as God was unwilling to get into a debate, so too you, my faith-full friend, should be unwilling to debate. Just stick to curses.