Q&A: Science and Faith Books Disappeared from the World
Science and Faith Books Disappeared from the World
Question
I came across an argument a week ago against religious faith that goes roughly like this:
If all the science books disappeared, then within 1000 years we would rediscover everything and write it all again in new books.
[Say Newton's law would become the law of the universe's release, but it would still say the same thing.]
But if all the religious books disappeared, then after 1000 years we would get completely different religions.
[Instead of meat and milk, we would get that meat with mustard is forbidden.]
What do you think of this argument?
Answer
I see a claim here, not an argument. I do not agree with this claim. If there were a revelation on the basis of which the books would be written, then they would resemble the earlier ones in some way. Of course, if you assume that all religions are human inventions, then maybe you are right. And even that is not certain, because those inventions are connected to human nature and to our ways of thinking, so there is a good chance that the new inventions would resemble the old ones.
Discussion on Answer
It seems to me that you do not know what an argument is and what a claim is. Never mind.
This is an argument that assumes what it is trying to prove. You assume that religion is an invention, infer from that that if it were rewritten it would be completely different (because if there was a revelation and a Torah was given there, why assume that what would be written about it would be completely different?), and from this you prove that religion is an invention. Amazing!!!
It is definitely a logical move, exactly like the following logical move that proves every Jew must wear a hat:
It is written, "And Abraham went." And a Jew like him certainly did not walk around without a hat. So we, his descendants who walk in his ways, certainly must wear a hat. Q.E.D.
The argument is of course: religion [and especially its halakhic / of Jewish law side] is a human invention, and from that it necessarily follows that it is neither eternal nor true, unlike the Pythagorean theorem….
The claim is brought above.
This perhaps gets support from the statement: "The Torah speaks in human language," which in its usual meaning says that the revelation was spoken to specific people at a specific point in time.
So even if we accept the existence of revelation, if all the books have disappeared, that revelation no longer has any meaning.
And if the Creator decides to reveal Himself once again, then it is certainly possible to assume that within 1000 years we would receive a completely different religion [which is not the case with Newton's second law], in which it would be forbidden to eat a kid with mustard.
Is this a logical move?