Books of science and faith have disappeared from the world
A week ago I came across an argument against religious belief that went something like this:
If all science books were to disappear, then within 1000 years we would find everything written again in new books.
[Let's say Newton's law becomes the law of the universe, but it will still say the same thing]
But if they eliminate all religious books, then after 1000 years we will have completely different religions.
[Instead of meat in milk, we accept that meat in mustard is forbidden]
What do you think about this argument?
I see this as an argument, not a claim. I disagree with this claim. If there is a revelation about which the books are written, they will be similar in some way to the previous ones. Of course, if you assume that religions are all inventions, then you may be right, and even that is not certain because these inventions are related to nature and our perceptions, and therefore there is a chance that the new inventions will have a resemblance to the old.
The argument is, of course: religion [and especially its halakhic side] is a human invention, and from this it necessarily follows that it is neither eternal nor true, unlike the Pythagorean theorem….
The argument is presented above.
This is perhaps reinforced by the statement: "The Torah spoke in the language of men," which in its ordinary meaning means that the revelation was spoken to specific people at a specific point in time.
So even if we accept the existence of revelation, then given that all the books have disappeared from us, this 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 will receive a completely different religion [which is not the case in Newton's second law] in which it will be forbidden to eat goat in mustard.
Is this a logical move?
It seems to me that you don't know what an argument is and what an assertion is. It doesn't matter.
This is an argument that assumes what is wanted. You assume that religion is an invention, conclude from this that if it were rewritten it would be completely different (after all, if there was a revelation and a Torah was given, why assume that what would be written about it would be completely different?) and prove from this that religion is an invention. Amazing!!!
This is certainly a logical move, just like the following logical move that proves that every Jew must wear a hat:
It is written, 'And Abraham went.' And a Jew like him did not go without a hat. So we, his descendants who follow in his footsteps, must certainly go with a hat. Mishal.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer