It took me a long time to figure out why it's so hard to prove the inaccuracy of atheism.
There is a lot of running around in circles and leap-frogging.
Atheists present a point. Believers scramble to prove it wrong...and eventually succeed. Then atheists leap-frog over that with another point, which propels believers to scramble again...and so on.
It's never-ending.
It also confuses things that, unless they're formerly frum and knowledgeable Jews, atheists have a very poor and not-completely-accurate knowledge of what the Tanach and the Torah Sages actually say and mean about God and the Universe.
(And then the same former frummies get their atheist information from the very atheists who themselves are Jewishly ignorant, making it all a self-reinforcing pattern.)
In addition, to confuse things even more, the vast majority of atheists in the world have a concept of God and religion as defined by Christianity, which is not an accurate version of God and religion (except for the parts they borrowed from us).
So to begin with, atheists argue against concepts that either aren't true (but which millions of people sincerely believe to be true) or are a mixture of truth and non-truth.
Understandably confusing, indeed.
Anyway, I was involved in kiruv for a while and read tons of stuff on my own spiritual journey prior to that, both material that supported the Torah point of view and material that opposed it.
And the back-and-forth runaround just never stopped.
Eventually, I realized that the atheist mistake is in the way of thinking.
To whittle it down to a digestible parable, let's say that there's a giant puzzle comprised of thousands of pieces.
People are told that the pieces all go together to create a scene of a beach lapped by a wide sea on one side and surrounded by lush trees on the other side.
There are gray rocks near the sun-bleached sand. In the background, snow-capped mountains rise toward a blue sky dotted with clouds of white and gray.
Kind of like this:
There is a lot of running around in circles and leap-frogging.
Atheists present a point. Believers scramble to prove it wrong...and eventually succeed. Then atheists leap-frog over that with another point, which propels believers to scramble again...and so on.
It's never-ending.
It also confuses things that, unless they're formerly frum and knowledgeable Jews, atheists have a very poor and not-completely-accurate knowledge of what the Tanach and the Torah Sages actually say and mean about God and the Universe.
(And then the same former frummies get their atheist information from the very atheists who themselves are Jewishly ignorant, making it all a self-reinforcing pattern.)
In addition, to confuse things even more, the vast majority of atheists in the world have a concept of God and religion as defined by Christianity, which is not an accurate version of God and religion (except for the parts they borrowed from us).
So to begin with, atheists argue against concepts that either aren't true (but which millions of people sincerely believe to be true) or are a mixture of truth and non-truth.
Understandably confusing, indeed.
Anyway, I was involved in kiruv for a while and read tons of stuff on my own spiritual journey prior to that, both material that supported the Torah point of view and material that opposed it.
And the back-and-forth runaround just never stopped.
Eventually, I realized that the atheist mistake is in the way of thinking.
To whittle it down to a digestible parable, let's say that there's a giant puzzle comprised of thousands of pieces.
People are told that the pieces all go together to create a scene of a beach lapped by a wide sea on one side and surrounded by lush trees on the other side.
There are gray rocks near the sun-bleached sand. In the background, snow-capped mountains rise toward a blue sky dotted with clouds of white and gray.
Kind of like this:
Or this:
(I couldn't find a photo that literally resembles the puzzle picture described in this post, but hopefully the above give you some idea...)
But there's no existent picture of this scene to guide people in putting it together.
People need to work it out on their own.
So what happens?
People who believe in the described image go along and look at a mottled gray piece and say, "Huh. This must be one of the clouds or one of the rocks."
They look at a blue piece and surmise, "This is either the sea or the sky. Hm. It actually seems more like a sky-blue than a sea-blue, so I'll go with that."
But there's no existent picture of this scene to guide people in putting it together.
People need to work it out on their own.
So what happens?
People who believe in the described image go along and look at a mottled gray piece and say, "Huh. This must be one of the clouds or one of the rocks."
They look at a blue piece and surmise, "This is either the sea or the sky. Hm. It actually seems more like a sky-blue than a sea-blue, so I'll go with that."
A green piece leads to a more solid consensus ("Trees!") while a piece containing a bit of white and blue leads most to think it's part of the sky and only question whether the white indicates a cloud or snow, while others point out that it could be part of the sea with some very white sea foam.
But a minority of people look at all the scattered pieces and say, "I don't see any picture here. And certainly not a beach scene. I just see random bits scattered about."
Yet when you show them a bit of sea-lapped shoreline, these skeptics say, "Okay. But you say that there are snow-capped mountains in this supposed picture. I don't see any snow here."
The snow is in another part of the picture, you say.
"Prove it!" say the skeptics. "I don't see any connection. Anyway, the beach is hot and snow is cold, so what you're saying is impossible."
Right! you say. You can't have snow on the beach or on the trees lining the beach. That's why the snow is farther away and higher up on tall mountains.
"Now you're engaging in apologetics," say the skeptics.
The skeptics take each puzzle piece on its own and thoroughly examine each one under the best microscopes and then make the following declarations:
"There's no snow on this piece! You said there are snow-capped mountains in the picture, but this piece is green, for crying out loud. Snow is white, not green."
"Okay now, this other piece is white like snow, but our experiments prove that this is the white of a cloud, not snow."
"And this piece is clearly the color of sun-bleached sand. No snow and no possibility of snow because it's clearly way too hot."
But when they do find pieces with snow, the conversation goes as follows:
"Well, yes, we have found pieces that clearly show snow...several in fact. However, there is no sign of any sea or trees or rocks on these pieces. Even when we put them together, we just see snow with possibly a bit of sky in the background. So our conclusion is that all these pieces are clearly random and don't make any picture at all, and certainly not a picture of a tree-lined beach."
And then they weave theories to support their views (based on the individual puzzle pieces they examined exhaustively under microscopes), then compile these increasingly elaborate and complex theories into academic theses and books.
Any plea for them to try to look at the puzzle pieces as a whole picture falls on deaf ears.
You're written off as disingenuous, engaging in apologetics, brainwashed, uneducated, sadly uninformed, or just plain naive.
NOTE: The vast majority have no idea they're doing this. They honestly don't see it.
And yes, some skeptics may appreciate your faith in the existence of such a scene and they may appreciate your belief in an order to the thousands of puzzle pieces for the inspiration and purpose it gives you, but they still view your belief as inaccurate and unscientific.
Yet when you show them a bit of sea-lapped shoreline, these skeptics say, "Okay. But you say that there are snow-capped mountains in this supposed picture. I don't see any snow here."
The snow is in another part of the picture, you say.
"Prove it!" say the skeptics. "I don't see any connection. Anyway, the beach is hot and snow is cold, so what you're saying is impossible."
Right! you say. You can't have snow on the beach or on the trees lining the beach. That's why the snow is farther away and higher up on tall mountains.
"Now you're engaging in apologetics," say the skeptics.
The skeptics take each puzzle piece on its own and thoroughly examine each one under the best microscopes and then make the following declarations:
"There's no snow on this piece! You said there are snow-capped mountains in the picture, but this piece is green, for crying out loud. Snow is white, not green."
"Okay now, this other piece is white like snow, but our experiments prove that this is the white of a cloud, not snow."
"And this piece is clearly the color of sun-bleached sand. No snow and no possibility of snow because it's clearly way too hot."
But when they do find pieces with snow, the conversation goes as follows:
"Well, yes, we have found pieces that clearly show snow...several in fact. However, there is no sign of any sea or trees or rocks on these pieces. Even when we put them together, we just see snow with possibly a bit of sky in the background. So our conclusion is that all these pieces are clearly random and don't make any picture at all, and certainly not a picture of a tree-lined beach."
And then they weave theories to support their views (based on the individual puzzle pieces they examined exhaustively under microscopes), then compile these increasingly elaborate and complex theories into academic theses and books.
Any plea for them to try to look at the puzzle pieces as a whole picture falls on deaf ears.
You're written off as disingenuous, engaging in apologetics, brainwashed, uneducated, sadly uninformed, or just plain naive.
NOTE: The vast majority have no idea they're doing this. They honestly don't see it.
And yes, some skeptics may appreciate your faith in the existence of such a scene and they may appreciate your belief in an order to the thousands of puzzle pieces for the inspiration and purpose it gives you, but they still view your belief as inaccurate and unscientific.
A Chain of Tradition
Now let's say that you guys have finally managed to put together a continuous line of puzzle pieces that stretch from the trees on the beach, over the water, and to the snow-capped mountains and the sky above them.
It clearly shows all the elements stated to be in the picture and it shows them as interconnected...exactly as predicted.
You present this to the skeptics, who look at this narrow but consistent line of tiny pieces and say, "Okay, but you claim there's an elaborate picture supposedly made up of all these pieces. This skimpy little line is clearly not an actual picture of the scene described in your claims. I mean, I can hardly make out anything on these pieces anyway."
It clearly shows all the elements stated to be in the picture and it shows them as interconnected...exactly as predicted.
You present this to the skeptics, who look at this narrow but consistent line of tiny pieces and say, "Okay, but you claim there's an elaborate picture supposedly made up of all these pieces. This skimpy little line is clearly not an actual picture of the scene described in your claims. I mean, I can hardly make out anything on these pieces anyway."
This is admittedly an oversimplification of the real dynamics, but I think it reflects the experience of the whole back-and-forth between those who believe in God and the Torah narrative and those who actively oppose and deny it.
(Many of the rest who don't believe are merely caught up in the theories spun by the most active and insistent opposers and deniers.)
(Many of the rest who don't believe are merely caught up in the theories spun by the most active and insistent opposers and deniers.)
May we all merit to solve the entire "puzzle" and enjoy the fruits of our struggle.
RSS Feed