(1) DavidBluston 11/3/2006 2:55:00 PM
The Immorality of Theists?
The idea proposed in this article and in 'The indigty of atheism' that atheists (or agnostics) can rationalise immorality based on disbelief in a 'higher power' is a vicious generalisation, and one that is laden with falsehood and hypocrisy.

Morality that is based solely on God's will is ultimately flawed for a number of reasons:
1. If following the commandments is partly or wholly for appeasement of God, than one is not being moral in the first place. Not committing a sin/crime to remain in God's 'good books' is purely motivated by self-gain, not because it is an immoral act.
2. If one believes God's commandments are the essence of morality, than one can come to one of two conclusions: Either the morals were there before God set them 'in stone' and he was merely the discoverer of them, meaning that it is in fact not God's will at all that governs morality. Or, more commonly believed is that the morals were created by God himself, which creates an even larger problem: If there is no independent, evolving morality from God, than the all-powerful deity is free to choose what is right and wrong. Some would argue that since he is omnipotent and supposedly all-good this is not a problem, but at numerous instances in biblical scripture God proves himself immoral by his laws, and even more so by the laws of morality and human rights as we know them today (an issue I will address in the third point). Therefore God can dictate what is right and wrong, even if his doctrine conflicts with one's sense of morality.
3. At various times in the bible, God proves that his commandments can be broken if commanded by him. This includes the mass genocide of the entirity of the world's population in 'the flood', allowing Abraham to attempt to sacrifice his own son, commanding the children of Israel to murder all of its inhabitants: men, women and children, and take their possessions. God's commandments are clearly only meant for the Jewish population, as he is perfectly happy (even commanding) of people being slain for being heretical or blasphemous, or believing in other Gods.

What is the major problem with these three points? Nothing, if one is of the non-fundamentalist persuasion, as the morals can (and should) evolve with society. The problem arises when the fundamentalists (and I don't mean this in the terrorist sense), that is the Orthodox part of any religion believes the scriptures word for word. Not only does this provide huge leaps of faith in terms of historical and scientific evidence, but even the themes of morality extracted from the Biblical stories become extremely dangerous. If one follows the commandments carefully, there is nothing stopping Orthodoxy from disrespecting homosexuals, diminishing the rights of women, or more extremely slaying those who believe in other God's, and even this agnostic who writes the comment.

Of course there is only an extreme minority who use their fundamentalism as a tool to commit 'evil', but without the use of evolutionary morals an uncompromising belief in the truth of God's words can and unfortunately does lead to injustices in the world.

As Stephen Weinberg states:
"Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things-that takes religion."


I would urge all, religious and secular to read 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins, a book that can cite this issue alot more coherently than I can.
Also please visit www.talkreason.org for vast information concerning/debating this and other religious issues.


(2) AviShafran 11/8/2006 3:27:00 AM
The Author Responds to Mr. Bluston
Thank you for your letter about my recent essay. I understand your umbrage at my contention that a true atheist might rationalize personal immoral action.
But please realize that I was noting a fact (that an atheist can do so), not
accusing any particular atheist of in fact ignoring his inner sense of right and wrong. Thus, I was not offering a "vicious generalization" - in fact, I was not generalizing at all - only presenting a fact, and an incontestable one.

I did not contend, and do not contend, that an atheist is incapable of
formulating a system of ethics or morality. My contention was simply that any such system will, in the end, rest upon nothing more formidable than the formulator's own sense. More importantly, an atheist needn't feel compelled to formulate any such system, and could in fact just as properly apply the same "law of the jungle" that drives the rest of the living world to the human sphere. Again, I am not charging you or anyone with doing that, only noting
that atheism fully allows for such.

I hesitate to comment on your philosophical points, since my essay did not aspire to cover Jewish belief in any global way; it only raised the issue of the legitimacy of the concepts of right and wrong. But allow me, at least in a
brief way, to comment on your numbered points, even though each truly deserves
an essay (at least!) unto itself

1) Reward and punishment are central to Judaism. If our actions are meaningful,
there must perforce be an "upshot" to them. Nevertheless, the motivation of a
spiritually developed Jew is not reward or punishment but rather the very fact
itself of doing the will of the One Who provided us life and free will. So what
is to motivate us, in the end, is love.

2) There is no "before" God, as time exists only for us, not Him. What the
Torah contains, including its laws, is a reflection of His perfection. We
cannot understand God's essence, but Judaism teaches that we are to emulate
aspects of His actions (mercifulness, generosity, etc,) in our own lives.

Our sense that there is right and wrong behavior is a hint planted within us
that some things are proper (i.e. reflective of God's essence) and others not. The particulars of those categories are, however, not known to us without divine guidance through the Torah. As to instances where it seems that God acts in ways not consonant with His traits of mercy and love, they are not necessarily
comprehensible to us (just as God in His essence isn't). As a thought-experiment, though, you might consider an operating room. Is the surgeon not doing unspeakable violence to a helpless person? Not if you know
all there is to know about the situation and the surgeon's motivations.
3) See #2
Observant Jews are not Biblical literalists; Judaism contains an oral tradition that explains what the text of the Torah really means; at times it is very
different from what a simple reading would indicate. But, yes, Judaism does
consider certain expressions of sexuality, including homosexual acts, to be wrong, and does consider men and women to be different. It does not, however,
mandate any violence against members of other faiths or of no faith.

To get back, though, to my essay (from which we have strayed far indeed), it is
interesting that you bring up Richard Dawkins, for whom you have an obvious
reverence. This week's Time Magazine, as it happens, features an article in
which he and another academic (Francis Collins, director of the National Human
Genome Research Institute) discuss science and religion. It is a remarkable exchange for two reasons.

Firstly, because the tone of the two men could not be more different. Collins, throughout, is polite and reasoned; Dawkins exhibits just the sort of anger and snideness that I made reference to in my article.

Secondly, because one snippet of the conversation speaks to precisely the
subject of my essay. Collins says:

"What you've said implies that outside of the human mind, tuned by evolutionary
processes, good and evil have no meaning. Do you agree with that?"

And Dawkins responds, to his credit, honestly:
"Even the question you're asking has no meaning to me. Good and evil - I don't
believe that there is hanging out there, anywhere, something called good and something called evil."

That response says it all. So, once again, if someone wishes to deny the inner conviction all humans have that there is something called good and something called bad, if one decides to consider the feeling an artifact of evolution, he can maintain an atheistic world view.

But to claim that there is nothing higher than us to Whom we are beholden as created choosers and at the same time to believe that there is objective good and bad is an unarguably inconsistent approach.
That is all I wrote in the essay that so exercised you. Please realize that
Richard Dawkins said no less. And then decide which side of the issue you are
on: the side that negates the very idea of ethics and morality, or the side that
affirms that idea.

And if it is the latter (as I hope), in the Talmud's words: "Go out and study."
And good fortune to you!
AS



(3) MikePhillips 11/3/2006 8:10:00 PM
Atheists are not angry - just clear thinkers
The naiveté of Rabbi Shafran's article is breathtaking. It is insulting and patronising to assert that a moral and ethical code must be foreign to atheists. The knowledge of right and wrong, good and evil, is not confined to the religious: it is what distinguishes mankind from other animals after thousands of years of development of the human mind.

As for the Rabbi's other premise, that atheists are angry people, well, as a devout atheist I certainly feel anger. What makes me angry? Poverty, ignorance, corruption, persecution, violence, hypocrisy, exploitation of the weak by the powerful. The misuse of power, whether by politicians, priests or employers. Smoking, drinking, gambling, drugs, and religion (surely the greatest misfortunes that mankind has visited upon itself). These are the things that make me angry.

Much of what the Rabbi writes, of course, is no more than fanciful twaddle, and does not merit a riposte.

Moving on, let us consider the concept of religion that the Rabbi is so keen to defend. I truly feel pity for the religious, because they are the unwitting victims of the greatest con job the world has known.

The kindest thing one can say about religion is that it is wishful thinking, or irrational belief in the unbelievable. Wouldn't it be nice if there truly were an all-knowing, all-powerful god who made everything, who sits on a throne somewhere up in the sky, who rewards our good deeds and punishes "sinners"? Where did such a lovely notion come from?

Go back a few thousand years. Picture a tribal society where there is no education, no scientific knowledge whatsoever. A crowd gathers. Someone says "Abe, you're a bit smarter than the rest of us, what's it all about, mate?" Abe says "It's like this. There's a big guy in the sky. He made everything, he knows everything. He says to me that as long as you lot look after me and my family, and follow my rules, he'll take care of you now and after you die, but if you break the rules he'll punish you and send you to eternal fires." Thus was born the concept of priests and their followers, and the simplistic ideas that the religious cling to even now.

That was fine then, and served its purpose – to create order from chaos, and a social hierarchy. Surely, after thousands of years of education and discovery we have moved on. I ask the religious, if you truly believe in a creator god, a "higher being", please answer these questions:

- When did god do it?
- How did god do it?
- Why did god do it?
- Why did god do it this way?
- Why would god be remotely interested in a particular species of animal, on this one tiny planet, out of the whole vastness of "his" universe?
- Why do you believe ancient, largely anonymous writings (in a language you couldn't possibly understand) ahead of contemporary, evidence-based research?

Are you brave enough to address these questions?

"Ah" you say, "no scientist has yet discovered the origins of life, or how the universe came into being." I agree, but that is not proof of the existence of god, simply proof that there are some things that are beyond human comprehension at this point in our development, just as a cat has no comprehension of the future, or of a world outside its territory.

If we care to think rationally some things become self-evident.

1. There is certainly something that we can call the "spark of life"; we don't know what it is or how it comes about, but this does not mean that somehow "god" must be involved.

2. In our experience nothing can happen without a cause, and for there to be a cause something must pre-exist. How does this relate to the universe as we know it? If the universe had a beginning, be it Big Bang or anything else, what came before to cause the universe? A moment's thought produces the answer that, in some form or other, the universe must have existed for ever. That means ALWAYS. NO BEGINNING, EVER. That is a concept outside our experience and our knowledge but it is indisputable. It may be difficult to accept but it is more logical than the idea of "creation", of a god saying "Let there be this" and Let there be that."

One can understand how appealing the idea of religion must be to people without education and scientific knowledge. How comforting it must be to believe that one has only to follow one's priests' instructions and all one's hardships would be rewarded by an eternal life in heaven. It sounds truly wonderful, especially the bit about the terrible punishments awaiting those who transgress.

In the 21st century, does this stand up to rational analysis? Does not the fact that so many different religions each claim to be the one and only true religion tell you anything? Does not thousands of years of war, persecution and torture in the name of religion tell you anything?

Another thing that makes me angry is when people refuse to think for themselves. I urge the religious to think carefully about their beliefs, to ask themselves the hard questions. I recommend them also to revisit Hans Christian Andersen's story The Emperor's New Clothes If, after all that, they choose to maintain their beliefs, I wish them well – provided that they do not try to impose their ideas onto others.
.
Atheists do not promote an alternative belief system. We do not have to prove anything - we accept the world as it is and gladly receive new discoveries about ourselves and our world as science advances. We see religion as simply an aberration. Our philosophy is "Man created god, not the other way round."

(4) Avi Shafran 10/29/2006 11:29:00 AM
Author responds to Mr. Phillips
Thank you for your thoughts on my essay. At points in your letter, you raise important and valid issues about our understanding of God. While I would very much like to address them all – as well as your claims that certain things are “self-evident” and your view of religion in general – I think the most productive response I can offer you would be to try to bring you back to the actual topic of my article.

I did not focus on science (for which I have deep respect), or on the misuse of religion (for which I have equally deep contempt). And I most certainly did not counsel anyone to “refuse to think for themselves.” Quite the contrary, I asked readers to think, and to think long and hard.

About one clear and limited idea – an idea, oddly, that you did not touch upon in your letter: Whether or not there is meaning to what we call morality and ethics.

The question I raised is how someone who denies that the universe was created and that its pinnacle is the thinking, choosing human being can view those concepts as anything but accidents of our random evolution.

The game is zero-sum. Either we have a larger purpose than just existing and enjoying our few years on earth, or we don’t. Nothing logically prevents taking the latter approach, that of a true atheist. But that conviction is inherently contradictory to the claim that there are things called “right” and “wrong.” For if we are essentially no different from apes, just less hairy and more intelligent, we cannot feel there is anything inherently objectionable about (as many animals do) mating with our close relatives, stealing from others of our species or, when we are sufficiently exercised, killing them.

To be sure, we might construct social contracts to protect ourselves. But a contract involves contractees. What if someone (and there are many such people) chooses not to enter the agreement? Do you feel that such serial murderers or rapists, or talented thieves or incestuous couples are somehow bad? If your answer is “no,” then you can claim to be a true atheist. If your answer, though, is “yes” – or even if you don’t answer but only sit and squirm at the question – then I submit that, despite your self identification, your convictions identify you as a believer in God – even if you haven’t fully thought out that implication of your convictions.

Please read your own letter again, calmly and objectively. I think you will see that many words you employed would seem to indicate an anger that has nothing to do with the sadness and frustration all civilized people feel about poverty, corruption, violence, et al. Please consider if perhaps the anger you – and so many professed atheists – feel at the point I have raised indicates that, despite your profession of disbelief, you have a sincere inner conviction that human actions are meaningful beyond their contribution to the propagation of the randomly-evolved species. That recognition, which was the only point of my essay, is but the first step of a journey of a thousand miles. I hope you will choose to embark on it (websites like aish.com can be valuable guides), and as you do, I wish you only well.

AS




(5) Anonymous 12/21/2006 7:24:00 PM
browardjewishjournal 12/14/06 partial-birth abortion act is consistent with jewish values
thank you for the article plainly and clearly expressed. the very last sentence needs to be spelled out further for me, however. When you say "effectively emerged", what do you mean re not effectively emerged. I'd appreciate even a small comment. Thank you for helping me understand.


(6) AlanS. 11/24/2006 5:21:00 PM
Quick answer
I never argue with an atheist, but instead say to them sarcastically: As for me, I thank g-d I'm an atheist!


(7) Liz 11/10/2006 4:13:00 AM
Come on already...live and let live!
I am not an atheist, although I was one many years back. I can understand the anger expressed by some of the readers of this article, but that anger speaks volumes in and of itself. I can tell you, I am not a Christian because I prefer not to proselytize others and I would appreciate very much that other do not proselytize me. But there are imporatant relationships between atheism and christianity that deserve to be noted. First of all, for many atheists, it's not just a G-d thing but a Christian thing, especially in the Western civilizatoins. G-d is not Christian. There is a difference between Torah and the New Testament. Whether one chooses to believe in one or the other or both is their business. But many atheists posting here brought up the idea of religious warmongering. While there is unfortunately a lot of that in world history, the atheists' inclusion of that in their arguments points to more of a difficulty with organized religion than with G-d. Especially when you stop to consider that the Crusades (read: Christian) are so commonly cited as examples of organized religion going haywire. This leads me to my second point. Both Christianity and atheism are proselytizing worldviews. This is true. Have you ever seen an atheist content to "allow" someone to believe in G-d without a foot-stomping argument? I have yet to see any atheist truly say "live and let live". I don't care if someone chooses not to believe in G-d but to insult me for choosing to do so myself (which, incidentally is none of their business) when I have not insulted them for not is inexcusable to me. So atheists of the world, a few words of advice:

1. Get down off your soapbox and leave us alone. But if we proselytize you, feel free to do what you will.

2. I am not stupid or uneducated as some of you would maintian that I must be. Open your eyes to the possibility that you are NOT the smartest people on Earth.

3. There is a 1:1 correspondence between everything that I can't prove and everything that you can't disprove...leave it alone already.

Thank you for your time.


(8) Calibansfury 11/9/2006 8:45:00 PM
Another response to Bluston--Much is Wrong
Mr. Bluston,

I like the vigor of your argument, but your aim is far off the mark.

First, you state rather strongly, that the Rabbi made a "vicious generalization...laden with falsehood and hypocrisy", but didn't say much as to why it was false or hypocritical.

Is it not true that one could rationalize their immoral acts based on the fact that there is no universal morality? Dude, read Nietzsche. Read Sartre. Existentalist nihilism.

Of course it's true. It's been done, and it's been said. Are all immoral actions of atheists based on this premise? No, and the Rabbi never implied such.

Second, your "morality based on God's will argument" is profoundly weak.

On your first point, the commandments are not to appease God. The commandments are a guide to purposeful living. God doesn't need us to be moral. He doesn't want us to perform tricks, like a trained pet. "Wow, look at Herschel not coveting his neighbor's wife! Good boy Herschel! Good boy!". Come on. The commandments of the Torah lead to a life where you think about the most mundane of things--and sanctify them. Wash your hands a certain way. Marvel at yourself when you're taking a leak! Be a good person! They have nothing to do with God. God's commandments are for man, and for man to elevate himself. How could you not understand that?

Your second point: God "discovered" morality? See the previous argument. I imagine that you've learned that if you behave in a certain way, you will become a certain way. Act self-confident enough, and you will become self-confident. Run, and you become a runner. The commandments, not 10, but 613, are the whetting stone for soul, for spiritual discipline. Everything you do in Judaism--it's on purpose, and thought about. This is the point of the commandments. You cannot conceive of a person who would day in, day out, consider the suffering of the animals he eats, give to those who need, although he may need just as badly--this is not an amoral bastard. This is a godly person. The commandments, the mitzvot, this is what they lead to. They are acts which refine us, not confine us.

Your third point--huh? If you're an atheist, or at least a skeptic--you want to show me the evidence of God's flood? It doesn't exist. There's not a shred of biological or geological evidence of the flood. Did you think that Adam and Eve were hopping around with a fig-leaf G-string too? Read the parsha's on aish. Read this weeks analysis. It perfectly illustrates Jewish thought on events such as these. Do you know anything about zen koans? They are questions or statements which allow for profound insights. Why do you think Jews are referred to as "people of the book", but it's the Christians which recite the Bible chapter and verse? It's because we STUDY it. What is the lesson behind the story? For Sodom and Gomorrah, one lesson among many, was clear: a single person of morality, of character, can be the salvation of a society. It didn't have anything to do with God killing anyone. Same with the floods. Same with the plagues in Egypt. Same with...oy. The literal or historical accuracy--this is missing the bigger picture. The Torah was written by a man, not by God. It's rich with metaphor, consistently. Why does it live, why is it relevant. Look at it as a historical textbook and you profane it, and more critically, you miss the whole freakin' point of it.

And Weinberg, though clever, is wrong. All people have the capacity for "evil" (what a loaded term!). Religion hardly has a monopoly on "good" people doing bad things.

Ultimately, I wish you the best, I encourage you to become more steeped in "the enemy" if you are going to argue against them, or make compelling arguments yourself. Maybe you're very young, I don't know, but I encourage you to read something outside of the books you already know will support your current beliefs. Read the books that challenge them.

Best of luck to you--

cf



(9) Calibansfury 11/9/2006 8:21:00 PM
GadHofmann
GH,

I can't imagine your suffering. I think your feelings are understandable. I can see how you wouldn't want to believe in God with what you've experienced.

However, I think your argument is a common one. Unfortunately, it assumes four things--1) the omnipotence of God gave him the power to stop these things, 2) the omniscience of God would've allowed him to know it, 3) the benevolence of God would've compelled him to stop it, and 4) God takes direct action in our lives to ensure that we don't suffer, nor should the people we love.

The first three are difficult to argue as fundamental positions on God. To eliminate one is to probably eliminate God.

But the fourth specifically addresses the reason for free will. If God was to intervene in all of our lives to stop all suffering, there's no point in free will: we're a 6 billion man puppet show.

Blaming God for suffering is absolving us of responsibility for the bad things that happen in life. We have to take responsibility. I doubt you had anything to do with the suffering you felt in your life. But the choices that OTHER men and women made undoubtedly DID.

If we expected God to prevent our suffering, we then surrender all personal responsibility for our actions. "Go ahead! Drink and drive drunk! You won't hit the little girl, because God will stop you! He wouldn't want her, you, her family, her friends, to suffer--so he'll wipe out YOUR bad decision. You'll veer at the last second, end up safely in a ditch, and the girl will escape unscathed...".

Is that how it should work GH? If God existed, we could make bad choices, like driving drunk because God will ensure no one suffers? All restaurants can undercook their food, and not concern themselves with sanitation, because God will prevent anyone from dying of food poisoning. Air traffic controllers can just go to sleep when they want to, pay little attention to their jobs--God will sort 'em out. That's what God's supposed to do right? Right? Prevent all suffering?

What about the Holocaust? Why would God have "allowed" this to happen?

Because to intervene, and negate any negative impact for one man, or one nation, would mean that he would be hypocritical to not do it for every single creature with the capacity for suffering on the planet. Is that what should happen?

Worst of all, it strips us of our free will, our freedom to CHOOSE the right and the wrong. The Messainic Age is one where we have evolved, by our own volition, into a global society of compassion, of choices based not on individual gain, but on global consequence. The karmic butterfly effect is always the governing rule.

Now, above, I used some examples-- mundane examples--to make a point. To say that suffering exists in our lives, and that BECAUSE suffering exists is proof that God DOESN'T, is an unfortunate misinterpretation of his place in our lives, and an abdication of our own responsibilities here in our world.

I wish you the best--

cf



(10) Calibansfury 11/9/2006 4:37:00 PM
Former Atheist, Now Converted to Judaism
So many comments--many good, many--not so much.

First, Rabbi, I commend you on the thought provoking article. Like art, GOOD art, the point is about the effect it has on the observer, rather than the product of the artist itself--and you have certainly achieved a beautiful effect.

Being a former angry atheist, I can understand the reaction of the other atheists here. Everyone feels they have an inherent sense of right and wrong. Someone mentioned cultural differences, and used stealing as an example. Please let me know what culture holds stealing as a value... What? They don't exist? Of course they don't. Such a society would destroy itself. We're not fruit-stealing monkeys. We're human beings. Tragically uneducated argument!

As C.S. Lewis aptly addressed in "Mere Christianity", there are cultural differences, and then there are aspects of fundamental human values. No society cherishes cowardice as a value. No society's heroes are theives (that is, no statue has been erected in any society for someone's skill as a thief--that's not to say that idolized societal figures didn't ALSO happen to be theives-- but they weren't idolized because of their theivery--but rather, despite it). There's a difference between a war hero who killed others in war, and a murderer. Get it?

Similarly, human beings can recognize fundamentally moral behavior independent of a God. This is, as "Joey" ALMOST said correctly, part of the Social Contract--which was Rousseau, not Hobbes (that was the Hobbesian concept of the "Leviathan"--completely different discussion, other than the fact that his ultimate conclusion is for the individual to govern their own behavior, rather than the state/government, or if you're so inclined, a God). "Nature red in tooth and nail" makes for some quick understanding of treating one another civilly, and this training leads to us continuing to behave in such a way as to independently of any potential repercussions.

And, this is essentially what the atheists here argue, though they seem to be arguing it rather poorly. Most want to immediately turn it into a discussion over the lack of existence of God. They also, as I was guilty of doing, are once again putting themselves above the others (who are apparently idiots, in need of evolving) who believe in God. Please, Atheists, take your educated brain over to the dictionary and look up the word "humility". There are minds vastly superior to your own, to include Maimonidies, Rashi, The Baal Shem Tov, Rabbi Akiva, as well as numerous, brilliant scientists who believed in God. Are there brilliant atheists? Of course. Carl Sagan is a personal hero of mine. But some of you glibly talk down to the Rabbi as if you're the first to read a physics primer, and when you do, you only show yourselves to be sadly educated on the subject, when read by someone who knows.

This isn't a discussion of the existence of God. It's a discussion of if morality can exist, and if it has any true, inherent value, without a higher being driving such morality.

As Kant argues well in "The Immortality of the Soul", one would be hard-pressed to find much justification for moral action beyond the confines of the Social Contract. Such actions such as self-sacrifice, and such values such as selflessness, (when we don't take into account socialization of the human animal to find pleasure in such activities,through other forms of emotional currency and, like the Pavlovian response, the pleasure center is stimulated by performing such an act, even in the absence of a reward), being a moral person will regularly stand in contradiction to our fundamental drives of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.

I feel that the Rabbi's point of pointing to specific despots is well understood--in the absence of a higher authority, without the checks of the societal contract by one who holds absolute power (relatively speaking), men tend to behave immorally. God is referred to as the Sovereign of the Universe for good reason, regardless of if he exists--to humble the soul, and tame the baser drives which will come to dominate should there be no power-check in place.

So, ultimately the morality of atheists is not of inherent value as an ideal (honor for honor's sake, kindness for kindness' sake). Maimonides makes a good argument--without belief in the immortality of the soul, and with such a belief comes an implicit belief in a higher power, the onus of perpetuating a steady morality falls to the atheists. How, he asks, can such a morality survive more than a few generations?

Put another way is Kant's moral imperative: what kind of world would my world be, if everyone in it was just like me? An atheistic world is not an evolved world. It is a world of (as so clearly displayed here, and again, something I know all too well), a world which believes that they have it figured out, the elitist mentality that those who seek God, who feel God's presence, are fundamentally delusional, uneducated, or just plain stupid--this is a world even atheists would want to live in? Forget God for a minute--just ask--what then is your basis for spiritual development? Even I didn't deny that the spiritual component was significant, was real, and was something to be pursued.

Atheists, ask yourself, as recommended by Rabbi Schacter-Schlomi--you get pleasure from doing good deeds, right? From doing the right thing, without expectation of rewards from some divine being, right? This is a pleasure pathway--something built into our systems to encourage the repitition of certain behaviors. Why do you think people get pleasure from praying? From talking to God? It's built into the system. Read Jung. The Archetypes. We are born with an inherent sense of mother, father, and God. No no, shut up. Just think on that.

Then ask why.

Keep asking questions.

Stop thinking that you figured out that God isn't there.

You haven't.

You don't know anything more than the delusional believers you condemn.

And remember in the end, we'll all get to find out, one way or the other.

"There are more things between Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophies".

Remember that.




(11) Anonymous 11/7/2006 5:16:00 PM
shame and weaknes
atheism has much to do with the idea that if you belive, it´s a sign of weaknes and dependance. Shame is no to far away. The other point it´s that they are afraid that they could be wrong, so they react in any way that shows how strong they are.


(12) Anonymous 11/5/2006 7:04:00 AM
Kudos to Rabbi Avi Shafran
Rabbi Shafran's articles on the futility of atheism have once again hit the mark. I would take this opportunity to thank him for the level of sophistication in the presentation of his ideas, complimented by superb language that make his articles a treat for the mind and soul. It is a rare combination today, unfortuantely, to read articles written by supporters of traditional Orthodoxy who are sufficiently versed in its precepts and capable of presenting its ideas and belief in words palatable to the general, well educated public. It is a Kiddush Hashem of the highest order to have the ability of clarifying our raison d'etre to those willing (and unwilling)to hear.

Thank you for your inspiration and thoughts.



(13) Anonymous 11/2/2006 10:04:00 PM
Eye of the Beholder
I have read alot of the ideas from athiests and counter thoughts from spiritulists, intelligent disign supporters and people of religious belief. And after a while you start to think that the athiests have a sort of blind spot to see anything beyond what they percieve as proven fact. While for the others the proven facts of the athiests are just part of the perception, one model of seeing life and the universe. While the deeper meanings and connections people of faith percieve as real are invisible to athiests. A philosophical blind spot, I do not think is easily overcome. One day they will encounter things that connect them to a higher power or challenge them in ways that are beyond the shallow model they mantain.


(14) PaulSugarman 11/2/2006 8:18:00 PM
Athiests conflicted?
Rabbi,

If you can't understand that athiests don't have the need to be answerable to "Something" beyond our own natures, then you are one of billions who need Guidance as to what is right or wrong.

Athiests are able to live in a world in which sensibility toward themselves and to others (what you might refer to as goodness and tolerance) is the only way we will survive as a race.

Difficult as that is for you to understand, it makes for a true and practical moral compass.



(15) Anna 11/2/2006 3:10:00 PM
I can't figure out atheists' morality, either
I wonder why some atheists bother to go to so much trouble to disprove the existence of God. I don't believe in the Hindu gods, but if Hindus do that's their business. I certainly don't waste time and energy on disproving something that I don't believe to be there in the first place, nor do I abuse the Hindus who do believe in these gods. And I expect them to return the compliment.

I can't see how atheists who are very moral, and there are many who are-I have known some-can't see that the idea of good and evil (the basics, the 10 commandments that exist, more or less, in every functioning civilisation world-wide, whatever their religion)must come from some divine source. Okay, one could argue that they are the way to keep society functioning, but that doesn't explain why they are considered good and bad.

I wonder how many people are real atheists and how many are simply passive non-believers, if that makes sense. I don't drink, but I am not a rabid teetotaller who tries to make everyone else not drink either.

This is a deeper issue than can be addressed in such a small space, I will leave it to people like Rabbbi Shafran who know so much more than I about such matters !!!


(16) Daniela 11/2/2006 12:29:00 PM
The main pitfall of atheism
Atheism will never explain altruism. It will never explain how one society can believe one action, such as stealing, is wrong while another thinks it's right. How does Sociobiology explain helping an old woman across the street ? Most importantly, dear Atheist, how can you be so sure the sense you have of right and wrong isn't influenced by the Christian society you grew up in ? If you grew up in Ancient Rome, or even the Soviet Union, you might have ended up with a totally different set of values. So how do you know your sense of morality is inherent ?? Go to the next Special Olympics and see if you can imagine it taking place in Ancient Greece. Then read the Code of Hamurabi and see if it talks more about human rights than property.


(17) dopeman 11/1/2006 4:37:00 PM
The anger of the rabbi
Avi, Avi, Avi, you are striving for absolute moral laws which transcend evolution is that it? You assume that these morals came from "God". Ok, let's say that you're correct. I'm not a humanist per se, but let's say that the faith of all of humanity rested on the killing of one innocent person. Would you still persits that he or she should be spared? Over the continuation of the human race?
It's discomfiting, isn't it?


(18) MarniRosen 11/1/2006 3:59:00 PM
Creation
Leaving aside for a moment the complex problems of right and wrong and what an atheist can base his/her morality on, can an atheist explain how this amazing universe came about without a Creator? Consider the incredible wonders in this world, from tiny creatures like the ant to birds and larger animals, let alone the perfection of the human body. No man-made robot can even come close to replicating the intricate workings of the human eye, ear or brain.
Also take a look at photographs of the planets, the galaxies, the entire, incredible universe. It is truly mind-boggling. Atheists say this all 'just evolved' from cosmic dust. If so, then where did the cosmic dust come from? Do they even have an answer?


(19) Anonymous 11/1/2006 11:42:00 AM
individual evil empires
If the idea of atheism is inherently evil , at what point does the espouser of said philosophy take responsibility for it and any inevitable brickbats that may come their way? And so what? What's to hide? Do we think the attitude out there of arguing "religion" will bear fruit unless we're dealing with a brutally intellectual person honest to the point of transcending personal philosophies to apply the opposing point of view personally? Or do we, who should confidently intone the passion and logic of our hashkofos, sacrifice the passion of our beliefs because passion should be,like country clubs, exclusive to the members? They, whomever "they" may be at the moment, will hate us no matter what the reason. Carry it to the extreme, to wit: Nazism is evil, but G-d forbid, the Nazis, nah, not them. Let's stop the appeasement!


(20) Manasseh 10/31/2006 2:30:00 PM
The Athiest In All Of Us
First let me thank you Rabbi Avi for this most challenging subject
As I read each thought and reasoning something becomes clear to me; the fact that somewhere in our journey of life, inspite of our faith and upringing there have been a time we all question/ed about the existence of G-D (someone responsible for; all seen, all felt all thought and all that is )
We have thought about good and bad wars and peace, hate and love; but after great scrutiny we come to the the reality that it is imposible to escape the facts all arround us that there is some inteligent being behind it all
I therefore have hopes for my atheist friends that they would look again with calm and true to yourselfness
I for one would be foolish to arguewith the fact that I am here and I am standing on solid ground that I am a being able to reason and make decisons moral and otherwise even though the best scientist in the world cannot tell its the source of it all
Thank G-D for G-D


(21) Anonymous 10/31/2006 9:01:00 AM
Don't bother
I was going to write a long-winded rebuttal to why an athiest's sense of morality is by definition self-chosen and therefore no more or less moral anyone else's self-decided definition (including a thief/murderer), but then, I remembered what a wise man once said: "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still".
So, let's let the athiests live their lives by their arbitraty morality, and continue to believe that this incomprehesibly vast universe and all the miracles of nature somehow came into being without a Creator. They're in for a big shock when they leave this world.


(22) Eliezer 10/31/2006 8:43:00 AM
Isn't it startling?
Isn't it startling? Even after Rabbi Shafran made pains to say in his 3rd paragraph (3rd, check it yourself!) that he doesn't consider atheists evil, nor unable to differ between right and wrong, nevertheless, several comments attack him for calling atheists bad people.

It seems clear that people are not bothering to read or comprehend what someone else is saying if they disagree with the essential argument.

I am a very Orthodox Jew, but I disagree with the rabbi's basic "proof". There are very logical reasons for humankind to embrace a sense of "right" and "wrong", for without it society would destroy itself. (See Pirkei Avos on this.) In fact one can find examples in the animal kingdom of birds, insects and animals that live in groups, and help each other without any understanding of right and wrong.



(23) Shira 10/31/2006 1:57:00 AM
Inherently flawed
The argument that atheists can depend on their own innate sense of morality is, in my opinion, inherently flawed...humans cannot ever be completely objective about rules that they set down for themselves, only a Higher Power would be able to decide what is "right" and "wrong" without fear of bias or personal considerations. I don't believe that atheists are bad people, I just think that people do need a Higher Being to set down the rules for them, so that we can't become like the kid who changes the rules in the middle of the game to make sure he's winning...


(24) rachelrosenthal 10/31/2006 1:47:00 AM
what is the drive to be moral?
the issue of morality is just a by product of the real issue at hand. when one believes in evolution or in any form of belief deviod of g-d where does that leave him? he is a desendant of an evolved human (an advnced from of monkey) and related to the rest of the animals. this means that he is just another from of animal. animals dont need morality yet we see that humans today whether religious or not formed societies based on morals and right versus wrong. i think that is what needs to be explainded. why is it that non beleivers WANT to be "good" ppl. (i dont think we need to argue whether they are moral or not because the fact is many are.) the fact that non beleivers want to be good is the question i would like to answer. a dog doest want to be good and neiter deos a lion. if the argument is survival and that humans need morality to survive then my question is: why? how is it that the only animals on earth with a sense of right and wrong and goodness outside of themselves are humans? it doesnt seem to match up with the rest of the animal kingdom.
the believers will say that there is a higher power who put a soul into man. he gave humans a higher state of being. one where they understand the concept of right and wrong and gave them the ability to choose. is there any other way to explain humans' supiriority over the rest of creation and the drive to be "moral"?


(25) Ben 10/30/2006 5:23:00 PM
Rabbi negates a lot
Rabbi,

As a fellow Jew who does believe in God (though I am not religious) I totally disagree with you. Look at the UNDHR and tell me if secularism is still anti-morals and values. It's disengenous to give examples of secular leaders who were mass murders while leaving out those who espouse hate: Falwell,some popes, the crusades, Khomeini, Haniyeh, many Islamic muftis--oh yes--and some settler rabbis. How many wars have been fought in the name of religion? It would suffice to say that religion is based upon a set of morals/values while secularism is set upon cultural and relative values--values nonetheless. Atheism is not perfect--but who gave religion its monopoly on morals? Because it stems from God? That's the point; not all people believe in God and everything religious texts state. That's fair, and you should accept that religion can be shown in a negative light, as can secularism.


(26) KeithGentles 10/30/2006 4:22:00 PM
Anger of the atheists
I dont think athiests are angry they maybe dont need GOD (yet), there is no way that any human being does not believe in something greater than themselves . No matter who we are or the country we live in the religeon we follow ,or the colour we are ,there will be a time we will pray no matter how we believe or think now.GOD is our only refuge.


(27) DanielGolden 10/30/2006 4:09:00 PM
Way to go Rabbi!!!
How do I convince my family about the truth?


(28) Anonymous 10/30/2006 3:14:00 PM

WELL SAID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


(29) RuthHalligan 10/30/2006 1:52:00 PM
Simple refutation
No, Rabbi. I behave in an ethical way because I believe that it has value to me and my family, friends, neighbors, etc. As an atheist, I do not need a hidden hand to keep me in line.


(30) Joey(again) 10/30/2006 11:22:00 AM
On the fighting...
I think one of the main reasons atheists are insulted by these articles is that they don't understand what the rabbi is saying. He is not saying that atheists are bad people; he is saying that atheism is a bad philosophy. He is not saying that atheists don't believe in right and wrong; he's saying that within atheism, there is no logic behind right and wrong. Does morality just exist independently of any Source? (And if so, can't it be called a kind of impersonal God?) Similar arguments can be made about religion, really---Socrates wondered if things were moral because God/gods said so, thus making it completely arbitrary divine whim, or if God/gods say things are moral because they are, thus meaning morality is independent of a divine source. In fairness religious people tend to have a hard time with these kinds of questions, but atheists, in my experience at least, can't come up with the logic behind their moral beliefs either. Theism works better at this for me (and Aish is one of the best places I've found to figure theology out :-).

God bless.


(31) Anonymous 10/30/2006 10:21:00 AM

such a powerful argument you give in the sense that. The atheist community should be conciderd has serious contenders in the Intelligent debate on the origins
of species. In all it`s corrisponding format. good on you Sir keep the debate
flowing in context where we can learn basic truths for our self no longer being led like sheep to interllectual slaugther.


(32) R.A.Wright 10/30/2006 9:59:00 AM
A fool says in his heart that there is no God
An Atheist once said to me, " you're going to feel pretty stupid if you've spent your whole life believing in God and it turns out he doesn't exist". To which I replied, no, it means I will have lived a good life, tried to do right by him and my fellow man. However, how will you feel when it turns out that there IS a God and believing in him DID matter?

The world today is on the brink of tearing itself apart with hatred animosity and terror, not to mention worldwide pandemics, natural disasters, genocide and all the other evils that men may do. And it easy to point fingers and say "LOOK! It's all those religious' folks fault!"

And to some extent, they would be correct. After all, who could possibly believe that religion has had nothing to do with the horrors that have transpired not only since, but even before 9/11. Muslims of one sect butcher Muslims of another sect yet both claim belief in Allah. Protestants kill Catholics yet both claim belief in the God of the Bible. Christians kill Muslims, Muslims kill Jews, and according to Mel Gibson, the Jewish religion is responsible for the whole mess!(though he later recanted that position)

For the un enlightened there is only one answer, and that is, there must be no God (Allah, Buddah, Higher power et al)and, all religion (spirituality)is bad.

As Rabbi Shafran has so aptly stated, man is the only creature imbued with a conscience,that is an inate sense of right and wrong.

Native Americans believe that the conscience is a triangle that is inside ones heart. When you do something wrong, it twists just enough to cause you to correct the wrong behavior. But, if you continue the wrong behavior, eventually the heart becomes hollowed out and empty and you no longer feel any pain, or need to correct ones behavior. I think of this illustration whenever I see people trying to justify their inhumamity to ther fellow man.

But is this Gods fault? No, because though God gave man a conscience, he also gave man free will,and man can CHOOSE to ignore his conscience and do right, OR wrong. However, there will be consequences.

Years ago I repaired cars for a living and invariably, someone would come in with ruined brakes or a ruined engine,and would curse the manufactuer for making such a shoddy product. Yet many times I'd ask, "was the care making any funny noises when or driving differently lately? Well, "the wheels have been squeeking for the past month" ( brake warning sensor ) or,"the check engine light was on". ( no oil in the engine or coolant in the radiator ) So the owners ignored the manufactures instructions, yet, were upset with the MANUFACTURER when the car broke down. Especially when the warranty didn't cover it.

Well, God has given us instructions on how to get optimum use of our lives. How not to so to speak, "void the warranty". Yet, like many car owners, many people ( and societies ) choose to ignore the manufacturers instructions and then get angry when things don't go the way they'd like.

Simplistic?... of course it is, it's just an illustration. But is it any less simplistic to blame God or religion overall for the evil misdeeds of those who MISREPRESENT who he is and what he requires? Just as belief in God alone is not enough, just as faith without works is dead in itself, all religion and spirituality is not indeed TRUTH. Evil often masquerades as good, and, just as it takes knowledge and discerment to distinguish counterfeit money or gems from genuine ones it takes effort to find truth. We must continually seek God if we truly want to find him. And he readily answers those who truly seek him.

However the mindset of Atheists, like hard core fundamentalists or jihadists requires a certain amount of closed mindedness and an adherence to a ridged view of the world and others. That their view is correct exclusive to that of anyone else. And while with the athesist, this usually amounts to a frenzy of blogging and abusive rhetoric, when his view is challenged, with the fundamentalists or jihadists it can lead to the bombing of abortion clinics or suicide bombers flying planes into buildings, activities, both of which I'm absolutely positive are frowned upon by God.

As to why he doesn't step in to stop these horrible things is a discussion for another time and I've taken up too much already. But, in closing, my comment to all atheists is if that's is what you want to believe, then go ahead, don't worry be happy. And to those who do believe, the words of another Rabbi who told his followers.. "Never try to teach a pig to sing.... it wastes your time and annoys the pig! Actually, it was something about pearls before swine, but I paraphrase...





(33) Karen 10/30/2006 9:50:00 AM
I've had the same experiences
Dear Rabbi,
Your writing is eloquent and precise; not a word is wasted. I aspire to write as you do. Thank you for postulating your thoughts so clearly. I also have noticed that those without logical defense for their arguments against God often turn to rage. When I am told by an atheist, "I am a good person," I reply, "To what are you comparing yourself? What is your 'measuring stick'?" I have yet to receive an answer. Again, I thank you. Keep the articles coming!


(34) Anonymous 10/30/2006 9:49:00 AM
The underlying fallacy in Rabbi Shafran's argument is...
One can absolutely believe in the notion of Right and Wrong without believing an omnipotent and omniscient being declared which is which. One can be an atheist and believe in higher notions of Right and Wrong while not believing that the universe was created by an Intelligent Being with Intention and the ability to communicate with humans, as the Torah states. Similarly, one can believe that the six-day creation in B'reishit (Genesis) is correct according to Science, simply a non-literal six days on Earth. I am one of those people who does not believe in a G-d as portrayed in the Torah, yet does believe in Good and Bad. I am happy and an observant Jew as well. Is this confusing to some, even angering to them? Possibly, but not to me.


(35) nadinecusnir 10/30/2006 8:31:00 AM
atheist dosnot mean savages.
Rabbi, what you are saying is either you believe in God or you are a criminalor a savage..etc. isnt that rather narrow minded? either we believe like you do or we are inferior human beings?? if everybody thought the same thing wouldnt it be boring? please excuse my english as it isnt my first language. thank you.


(36) MaburnT.Smith,Jr. 10/30/2006 8:00:00 AM
Reply About Atheists
Dear Rabbi, I promise not to curse at your logic or imply anything against your person because I am thinking of a saying from an unknown author that goes something like this: "I do not believe in God but I pray there is no hell". Great articles and I appreciate them. /s/ a believer.


(37) Nechama 10/30/2006 6:07:00 AM

A comment to Julie:
You mention the religious people you know are hypocrites. How many religious people do you know personally? Do you really believe that no religious people are sincere? I think not.
G-d bless you and help you find the true path.



(38) IreneAllen 10/29/2006 7:23:00 PM

I don't usually make comments or respond at all, but, I really like your topics. I like a little meat in my meal. smile*


(39) Julie 10/29/2006 7:03:00 PM
I've Known Many Athiests Including My Mother
Without exception among those athiests I know, they are anger filled hate freaks. Every last one of them. Usually it was something that happened to them or a loved one that brought on the athiesm. Most of them I know say "what is the difference whether there is a HIGHER reasoning for being good or bad, right or wrong, as long as they treat their fellow human beings with respect and caring?" The thing about this is, that most of the athiests I know are not able to do this in a consistent way because they have so much anger and hatred pent up inside. This is not to say that religious people don't also have a lot of anger and hatred built up inside too, which I've seen plenty of this as well among fundamentalists of all stripes. Also the religious people I've seen are much more hypocritical, and repressed than the athiests are. I think it would be a toss up for me to choose which are the more angry and hateful - athiests or fundamentalist religious types. By far I would say that the fundamentalist religious types are more hypocritical anyway.


(40) BarryE.Lerner 10/29/2006 6:18:00 PM
Civil response to R. Shafran's position on atheism
To consider any topic involving morality, we must establish a framework, a continuum, at one end the greatest good, at the other the greatest evil. For me, the greatest good is the survival of mankind, the greatest evil its destruction. Note that most, probably all, organisms have a specific survival mechanism. Mankind's special survival tool is our civilization; not simply the brain and the opposable-thumb hand, but rather the brain and the hand in the service of society. My concept of morality, then, is measured by whether, and how much, a given action contributes to the survival of civilization. The question then arises, why should I care. To that I would refer to Jewish wisdom, in the answer given by the old man planting a tree: As others long gone planted for me, so I plant for those I will never see. There is a glory, a nobility even, in being a link in the chain of life, from proto-humans many thousands of years ago to who knows what in the future. To follow this line of reasoning, I can and do use the precepts of the Torah, not because I fear that a supernatural being will otherwise harm me, but because its profound insights are as relevant today to society's welfare as they were 2000 years ago. I happily join my more devout brethren in tikkun olam, since we work toward the same goal, albeit impelled by different visions. I do not feel anger in this situation, and do not understand why any one would. Occasional sadness at my own failings, but not anger.

Incidentally, if I may take another minute of your time, the responses to your initial article are not unique. I am a member of Mensa, and some years ago had published in their national journal an article on war and peace. The range of responses from arguably intelligent people paralleled yours; a few were reasoned, some were irrelevant, and many were crude, even hateful. It would seem that emotion trumps reason every time.


(41) Vera 10/29/2006 6:05:00 PM
...in defense of...
Dear Rabbi Safran,
as a lapsed atheist, I'd like to add to your explanation of the atheist's anger. There is a really difficult dilemma: to ascribe to supernatural or unknown, may take one easily beyond the territory of the rational - which is rather scary; also, the implication that one cannot be moral/ethical without G'd - is insulting; thus the helplessness about these two unacceptable alternatives may be rather infuriating...!


(42) ManassehOleMankuleiyo 10/29/2006 5:21:00 PM
Atheism is a religion
When I was a teenager in maasailand, I remeber asking my very old grandfather why the maasai people believe the existence of a supreme being enkAI- G-D his answer was;
" You either have to be a hypocrite, insane or just a fool to believe that something can come from nothing or creativity and inteligence from absolute void
This are the kind of answers you will get from third world countries from vilage folks, people who have no theological credentials
If belief is a religion then atheism is a religion
The atheist believes that there is no G-D just like the believers belives there is G-D
In third world the belief that there is no G-D is frowned on and considered absurd
This I found out after a lot of international travelling and research for my own personal knowledge.
Heres whats funny;
Like children arguing in a mud puddle, in a little village, in a country in the world that is so miniscule in the midst of the universe we seem to know so much!!!!!
Thank G-D for G-D


(43) Mike 10/29/2006 3:06:00 PM
Athiests are evolved, still waiting on you.
I am an atheist and I feel sorry for you and all of the "good" religious people who blindly follow and perpetuate the god myth. We are in the 21st century, are we not? As for your previous assertion that you would prefer to be on an island with an avowed religious believer than someone who has cast off the shackles of imaginary belief, religion in all forms has killed more people (men, women and children) than all of the non-religious people put together. I don't need some fantasy to force/scare me to treat other people decently, why can't you just treat other people as you would wish to be treated?

Go in the peace of knowing your human, not in some imaginary belief.


(44) Anonymous 10/29/2006 12:46:00 PM
Not angry, not offended, but...
Dear Rabbi,
No matter how hard I try, I cannot believe in a higher power. (I am proudly Jewish by birth, tradition and ethnicity.) I do not look down on people who do; as a matter of fact, I envy them. But I also think that I am a good and moral person, and I live my life by one simple rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Why do I do this in spite of the fact that I do not believe in a higher power? I don't know. It just seems right somehow. I think the basic philosophy is secular humanism. It feels good to be good. And, I do believe that too many injustices have been committed in the name of religion. I do not advertise my atheism. Most people I know do not know that I do not believe. Even though I respect everyone else's beliefs, I have found that believers do not respect those of the atheist. ARe they, the believers, perhaps, the most intolerant of all?


(45) AlanLasnover,MD 10/29/2006 12:32:00 PM
An atheist's rebuttal
I am amazed that the good rabbi doesn't see the insulting nature of his works--telling atheists that they, as a group, make no moral distinction between right and wrong is the highest insult! What kind of response does he believe is justified? The good rabbi might understand that many atheists believe that morality and a sense of ethics can emanate from within, i.e., that one fails to need a God or religion to provide direction as to how to behave in this world. The rabbi surely knows that more blood has been shed in the world by those who claim that their belief system is superior to that of all others--even today, we have the conseervative Christian, Jewish and Islamic groups making such inane claims. The fact that some of the world's dictators are/were atheists hardly provides basis for his character assassination of others. In conclusion, the rabbi judges and then raises his arms defensively, claiming, "who, me?????"


(46) ThomasBraun 10/29/2006 11:08:00 AM
Morality based on reason is possible
Dear Rabbi Avi,
semantics are tricky, so a strong, unqualified or ambiguous statement, may alienate readers. I know there are two kinds of atheists: moral, ethical people, good citizens and uninformed, prejudiced, biased atheists who may not do good to themselves or others. I studied at Yeshivah Eish Hatorah in 1973 for three months to answer the question "who is a Jew and what is Judaism?". Rabbi Noah Weinberg and his team were and are an excellent group to assist answering such a question. I am a conservative Jew. In spite of my being a conservative Jew, I do belive that agnostics and atheists, if well informed persons, can have a set of values and morality which enables them to have a productive life and very positive contribution to society. I do not think that religion is the only source of ethics and morality. I have studied objectivist philosophy as proposed by Ayn Rand which proposes morality based on reason and also read Bertrand Russel and Friedrich Nietsche, both atheists who proposed also ethics and morality not based on a belief on G-d. Jewish ethics and morality deserve from me the highest respect and admiration, but as with other religions, as I have said before, I do not think that morality and ethics necessarily require a religious basis. I support Zionism and the positive aspects of religions, of course, I am closer to the Jewish religion than others. Bottom-line: sometimes with imperfect oral or written expression, we may alienate others and that may include respectable, decent and good atheist citizens. Shalom, Thomas.


(47) Anonymous 10/29/2006 11:02:00 AM
personal choice that's all
I am sorry people were rude to you Rabbi. The anger and defensive of the atheists responding to your original article is indeed very telling. An atheist will rarely if ever say 'I know what I believe and I don't care if you like it or no' because they DO care when someone challenges their shaky "faith." They resort to ridicule, foot stomping, meaness. They're defensive. They'd rather have religious people go away then consider the possibility that they are wrong, and that it is their OWN faith that is without merit and senseless.

Most human beings (including religious) naturally geer themselves towards evil and selfishness. Atheism is the epitome of selfishness. They want a "god" of their own design--created for them by them.

Without Hashem as the guiding force and His word as the foundation for righteousness, morality, goodness, with are left with only ourselves. Morality becomes little more than personal choice. I like something, so it's good. You don't like it so it's evil. We're seeing the results of this moral equivolence in our world today in everything from appeasement of terrorists to abortion.

Arguments about the world being created by random phenomena doesn't make much sense. We haven't seen a random world created since G-d created ours. I've always felt that the more complex (though perfectly functioning) something is the less likely it is to be cause by some random force. Events occurring at random are quite often chaotic and unformed.

Take a Monet painting or a Bach piece. Those require the skill and talent of a gifted artist and composer--not randomly throwing paint on an easle or banging on an organ.




(48) YechielSchachner 10/29/2006 10:31:00 AM
Self reliance
Apparently Rabbai Shafran needs something to tell him what is right and what is wrong. An Atheist can rely on his own sense of morality. Religious people general;ly do right because they expect a reward or are trying to avoid punishment. Atheists do right from an inate sense of morality.


(49) GadHofmann 10/29/2006 10:14:00 AM
I am an atheist
I have never killed anybody and while serving in Israel with the Haganah, Jewish Settlement Police and the Israeli defence forces NEVER EVER even pointed my weapon at a human being.

I became an Atheist when I realised that my praying religious Jewish Family were all led to the Auaschwits Gas chambers and Murdered while no "god" gave a damn. My father was killed by w bomb in Jerusalem placed by Menachem begin's Gangs. My Mother died when I was only 6 years old and No "god" gave a damn,,,,, Because no "god" ever existed !


(50) Joey 10/29/2006 9:16:00 AM
I have to agree with you
Like you said, most atheists do believe in right and wrong; but you're right that it seems hard to find a reason WHY there is right and wrong if there's not Something higher than humanity, some moral force that transcends mere nature. When I've asked atheists, for example, why a person should help others, I've usually gotten answers that it helps the giver in some way---either because they feel good doing it (for purely evolutionary reasons), or something like Hobbes' Social Contract (because they'll help you, it makes a working society that benefits all, etc.) While these do make some sense, I don't find them satisfying; you're right in that they seem unable to find any INHERIT goodness in anything, as in, it wouldn't be right to help someone if you weren't getting something out of it. If you know that someone's made in God's Image, that's not a problem; but if you and the other are both just animals, what's the point?

God bless.