ChaBad Debate

=====I recently visited Chabad.org, as I am doing research for a book I hope to write by the end of 2008. While I was there, reading the articles, I came across an article entitled "Proof of the Existence of G-d." The article is quite lengthy, and the point thereof is evident. I read the entire article, and I couldn't help but to feel bad for the author. After thinking about it a moment, however, I remembered that religion is a system based on faith, not on academic argument. The lack of the necessity of academic and scientific support for philosophical and religious faith is definitely the saving grace of many of the articles found at Chabad.org.
=====I honestly don't understand the motivations of people who, while claiming to have the utmost faith in their God, try to build logical and academic arguments for their God's existence. The entire concept doesn't make any sense to me. Either you have faith, or you do not. Faith in a matter, by definition, should preclude the search for proof of the matter. Once you begin a mission to prove the matter of your faith, you have ceased exercising your faith. You cannot have both faith and logic. Faith is the belief in ideas that logic cannot support.
=====You cannot have "faith" in science, for example. Science is a process by which theories are constructed from the observation of facts. Science needs evidence to support facts, and it needs facts to build theories. At no point is it possible to "believe" in something that logic cannot support. Science, by definition, requires logic and experimentation to function.
=====Despite this seemingly obvious initial flaw in the arguments for a Biblical God, I will still analyze the arguments presented by the author for academic and logical merit. To keep things ordered, I will address the issues one at a time and use block quotations from the original article.
=====The first point formulated by the author is the "just because we don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there" argument. The author writes:

Prove the existence of G–d? In truth we must analyse the question before we attempt an answer. What is considered a proof? How does one prove that anything exists? Take, for example, a blind man. Does colour exist for the blind man? He cannot see colour yet it still exists. That fact is established by others who can see. The blind man believes and trusts that his fellow men can see that colour does exist although it is beyond his personal experience.

For a further example, take electricity. When we turn on a light can we see electricity? The answer is no, we see only its effect. Take gravity. When an object falls we cannot see, hear, feel, taste or smell gravity – we see only its effect. All agree that gravity is an undisputed fact of nature – since we see its effect. Scientists today are still baffled as to exactly what is the “stuff” of gravity.

The author is overlooking one of the fundamental elements of science. The author is overlooking the fact that science deals with natural phenomena and uses physical evidence -- be it a matter of the five sense, mathematical calculation, or otherwise directly observable or measurable data or result -- to build an understanding of that phenomena. The author is making the suggestion that scientists postulate theories and ideas without direct physical evidence.
=====The difference between the author's assertion that the presence of God can be observed via its effect on a living creature and the theory that gravity pulls things toward the center of the planet is that the latter is based on physical, measurable evidence. The effect of God on a human being cannot be measured. It is not genuinely possible to scientifically measure what one might describe as "happiness" or "spirituality." Even if it were possible to measure these things, a heightened level of "happiness" and/or "spirituality" would simply be an observation in the change of emotional state -- it would not be proof, or even evidence, that God was the cause, let alone that God even exists.
=====Electricity can be measured and its effects on objects and environments can be witnessed in a tangible and physical sense. Colour can also be measured and analyzed on the colour spectrum. The blind man would not know colour existed without a seeing person's observations, but a seeing person would not know colour existed without the physical sense of sight and the observation of the beaviour of light in the spectrum. Electricity and colour are natural and physically observable phenomena and are in no way related to the emotional "feeling" or philosophical "seeing" of the presence or power of God. The fact that the Biblical God is not physical, but metaphysical, makes any scientific debate over His existence impossible.
=====In his next argument, the author turns from the scientific to the legal and historical in an attempt to prove God's existence. The author says:

In a court of law the strongest proof that something happened or existed is a witness statement. Seeing is believing. You cannot compare something seen to something heard.

The "strongest proof," though I assume he means strongest evidence, in a court of law that something happened, especially that it happened a particular way, is forensic evidence. As the author says, "You cannot compare something seen to something heard." For this reason, forensic science, which allows a judge and jury to "see" evidence and data from a crime scene, is more powerful than eyewitness account. Witnesses are human so they can make mistakes and/or lie. Forensic scientists must use scientific method through experimentation and observation to verify the claims of eye witnesses. Without forensic science, which relies entirely on physical observations, cases are almost impossible to "prove" -- such is the "case" for the Biblical God.
=====The author follows this incorrect assertion with another, suggesting:

Any historical fact is proven by those who witnessed and recorded the event. It follows that the more witnesses to that event, the more bona fide the fact.

The author has just put the entire discipline of archeology out of work. Obviously, recorded history can be flawed or even invented. To get to the facts of recorded history, archeologists must search for clues and evidence as to the true nature of ancient events. The author seems to misunderstand science at every level and in every discipline.
=====The misinterpretation of what constitute a fact continues. The author offers the reader a bit of circular reasoning, arguing:

All agree, however, that the Jews left Egypt and, forty-nine days later, stood before Mount Sinai and heard the Ten Commandments from G–d.

This is known, not just because a book (the Torah) tells us so, but simply by tradition – by the fact that generation after generation of Jews have transmitted this story, and that it is based on the actual experience of an entire nation. It therefore remains an undisputed historical fact. The Jews who left Egypt witnessed the Ten Plagues, the Exodus, and revelation at Sinai, and transmitted these events down the generations.

I say this is circular reasoning because the author's argument boils down to the idea that the Torah is not the source of Jewish tradition, even though Orthodox Jews observe Jewish tradition based on what the Torah tells them to be the facts and to be the laws. The author comments further:

In fact, had there been “Chinese whispers”, a distortion of the story over generations, we would have ended up with different versions of the story. All agree, however, that the Jews left Egypt and, forty-nine days later, stood before Mount Sinai and heard the Ten Commandments from G–d.

Chasidic Judaism is a form of Orthodox Judaism. Orthodox Judaism is defined as, "The branch of Judaism that is governed by adherence to the Torah as interpreted in the Talmud," by the American Heritage Dictionary. The author is overlooking the fact that traditions, as they exist is Judaism today, are derived entirely from the Torah and the books written to "decode" the Torah (like the Talmud). The Torah is thousands of years old. The traditions and stories that have been passed down through the millennia have gone unchanged because they have been taken from the Torah which had been used as reference material for thousands of years. There is no way of knowing how many different stories and traditions there were before the information in the Torah was recorded and ultimately institutionalized, so there is no way of knowing what alterations have been made to the traditions and stories since the time before the Torah had been written.
=====For the record, there is no historical evidence that there ever was a Hebrew Exodus from Egypt or that there ever were ten plagues or that there ever was a Moses. The Torah offers no date for this event, and clouds things further by never mentioning the name of the Pharaoh who resided over Egypt at the time of the alleged Exodus. You would think, in these oral traditions, that one of the greatest enemies to the ancient Hebrews -- and the first human opponent of God -- would be a person worth remembering by name. Almost every random and kindly shepherd is recalled by name, every Canaanite chief and family history, every animal sacrificed and when, every exact number of wizards, priests, prison wardens, and women is remembered with precise detail; yet, the Pharaoh is unnamed. Aside from the fact that archeological evidence actually suggests that the Egyptians would have probably been on good terms with the Hebrews, if they were ever in fact in Egypt, the story is extremely suspect due simply to the lack of a name for the residing Pharaoh.
=====The author goes on to attempt to prove the existence of God through the application of the history of the Jewish people; however, I think, from the flaws in the Exodus story, it is safe to say that this idea is also an exercise in circular reasoning and move on. To even begin to take this idea seriously, one must be willing to admit that there was, in fact, an Exodus from Egypt by Hebrews and that there was, in fact, a Moses. Archeological evidence suggests that the likelihood of either of those two pieces of information turning out to be an actual fact is extremely low.
=====From there, the author begins listing passages from the Torah, solidifying the fact that the history and traditions of the Jewish people come directly from the study of the Torah. There is no scientific evidence suggesting that any of the stories in the Torah are historical facts. There is no way of knowing how much of the original oral tradition made it into the Torah as it has been for the last few thousand years. There is no way to scientifically prove that the Torah scrolls or the Dead Sea scrolls were even written by Jews -- it just seems like it would make sense. Somehow, the author forgets that to exhibit faith, one must believe something that cannot be proven and to give that thing relevance beyond scientific proof. The author demonstrates his lack of faith in God by attempting to prove the existence of God through the utilization of his faith in the Torah as unquestionable fact. Somehow, God is questionable, but the Torah is not.
=====I'm not a religious person. Still, I think, no matter what religion you practice, it seems silly to put the unquestionable truth of an inanimate object above the unquestionable truth of the existence of your God. The Torah, however, cannot be proven to be true through science. As the Torah cannot be proven truth with science, then the Torah can only be debated in the realms of the philosophical. If the Torah, then, is only a piece of philosophical literature, where does that leave the Biblical God?

Righteous are the Wicked, For They Can Do No Wrong

=====Atheists, in their never-ending quest to distribute rationality throughout the world, rely on certain intellectual weapons pretty regularly. Of these weapons, one is a particularly popular bit of philosophical criticism which is usually challenged with the same go-to response from their opponents -- "[God] works in mysterious ways." The bit of philosophical criticism I am referring to is, of course, the question, "If there is a God, then why do bad things happen to good people?"
=====I have never been very impressed by the question. For one, it is a hypothetical and philosophical point being used to win an academic argument. Philosophy is ok for spiritual discussions, but, when one is dealing in academics, facts are the only truly useful weapons in one's arsenal. Since no debate about religion is a debate of the spiritual -- the spirit is a hypothetical object which, in order to use in debate, must be proven to exist -- no one should really be falling back onto philosophy to get an advantage. However, if one is going to turn to the philosophical to stagger an opponent before delivering a deathblow with fact, I think the question should be rethought.
=====Instead of asking why bad things happen to good people, I think it would make more sense to ask why good things happen to "bad" people. By "bad" I mean the people that religious opponents would ordinarily label as such -- atheists, agnostics, homosexuals and evolutionists (evolutionist being anther word for scientist). Instead of asking "why would God flood New Orleans and kill so many devout Christians," ask "why do people like Bill Gates and Ted Turner, an atheist and an agnostic respectively, have billions of dollars, healthy families, and extremely successful careers?" Instead of asking "why would God allow infants to die of AIDS and cancer every day," ask "why do people like Ian McKellen and Elton John have such mass appeal and enjoy so much success in their endeavors?" In this sense, it is OK to allow your opponent's assumptions of what is morally right and wrong, according to their dogma, to be accepted as truth.
=====If it is an unquestionable truth that the bible and God define what is right and wrong, then the opponent will have to accept the fact that good is being done to bad people, despite God's will. In the reverse case, it is too easy to say that "[God] was punishing the greater wickedness of the people, and some of the faithful were sacrificed to do this greater good," or that "[God] works in mysterious ways." In this case, it isn't just mysterious, it's basically mocking.
=====If God punishes the evil by creating floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, diseases, and mudslides, then why are some of the evil people doing so well? To suggest that God actively punishes people is to suggest that God has a favoured people. To suggest that God is actively playing favorites is to suggest that God is a participating player in the events of the world, every day. It would stand to reason that God would also actively reward the righteous, as He regularly does in most Holy books. While this slightly negates the concept of "free will," it also necessitates a very reasonable conclusion to be drawn; God's favorites aren't always as they appear.
=====Clearly, some of God's favorites are atheists and homosexuals. In the scheme of things, these people must really be his favorites for, no matter what they seem to do against his Word, they can apparently do no wrong in His eyes. If God is actively punishing the wicked and rewarding the righteous, then Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Ian McKellen and Elton John are being rewarded for something -- and then some. While others are struggling to fit into God's bizarre model of human behaviour, and still only managing to be lower to middle class (as, statistically, most devoutly religious people are), others knowingly and intentionally laugh in the face of God yet still receive his hearty blessing in the form of success, happiness, and excess.
=====Even some of the most rabid opponents of God as a concept are routinely being blessed with bounty and success. Richard Dawkins's every book goes directly to the best seller's list in multiple countries. Neil Tyson has several television shows, well sold books, and a successful teaching career to his credit. Albert Einstein, who once said, "I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion" (Letter to Hans Muehsam March 30, 1954), and who suggested that the idea of a personal God was naïve, had an incredibly successful career and became a living legend in the scientific and pop-culture worlds before dying at a respectable old age. Joseph Stalin, who murdered hundreds of thousand of monks, nuns, and priests of various religions, converted the Orthodox Russian Church into a Stalinist patriotic institution in his own mental image, and committed general mass genocide and countless acts against humanity, died as a successful, undefeated, and essentially worshipped ruler at the age of 74 in his own bed. Clearly, these individuals just have something about them that God can't help favoring in spite of brash disrespect and misbehavior.
=====It is harder for the opponent to dismiss this idea as God working mysteriously, or as God committing a seemingly unjust act to accomplish some greater good. To conclude that God has made these men successful to accomplish a greater good would be to admit that these men, despite their positions and beliefs (Stalin aside), are good people who share their wealth through charities and spread their wisdom which advances the sciences and improves the state of living in general. The opponent will only have two weapons against this understanding and both can be turned on their wielder.
=====The first point of attack the opponent may make could be to point out that Carl Sagan died of cancer -- albeit at a respectable age -- and that Stephen Hawking suffers from Lou Gehrig's disease. This approach has a pretty major flaw. The flaw is in the fact that, despite being stricken with illnesses, both Hawking and Sagan were able to advance their sciences and our understanding of the Universe and were it came from. Stephen Hawking continues to push on, discovering more information about our true origins, every day. Both men's unyielding success, in the face of great illness, would mean that God, despite his best efforts, cannot stop an over-intelligent and extremely determined and mortal human being from accomplishing a goal. This fact would suggest that God is not all powerful; in fact, it would make Him a little less powerful than Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking's will to discover and spread knowledge.
=====The second point of attack for the opponent may be to use the old and reliable standard: "God does these things to test our faith." That would mean that God, in his infinite wisdom, can be equated to a blatantly biased school teacher. If one, even the opponent, had a school teacher who gave all the kids he liked, for personal reasons, good grades, but, no matter how well you did or how hard you studied, never gave you more than a C, one would naturally hate that teacher and think he was unprofessional. Also, if one had a teacher who regularly gave out bad grades to good students, but good grades to bad students, just to teach the good students to try even harder, he would most likely be fired and barred from teaching in general. Rewarding good behavior with negative reinforcement is psychotic and proven to be detrimental to a learning mind; wouldn't God know what best works, psychologically, on minds He himself created?
=====God might make the occasional bet with the Devil regarding the faith of his subjects, take poor Job in the Abrahamic religions for example, but nowhere in the Holy texts, that I've read, does God openly reward evil doers to prove a point. In fact, God regularly punishes evil doers and rewards the righteous accordingly. God only "tests the faith" of his followers by nonsensically punishing the righteous to the breaking point. This is true of pretty much every religion with a God or gods.
=====The final cop out that the opponent may try to use is the idea that "God is beyond our mortal understanding, so we cannot question his work." This is, usually without realization, an open admittance that the opponent cannot possibly know anything about God. This means that the opponent must also acknowledge -- likely with coaching -- that they cannot be sure that any text written is an accurate illustration of God or God's behavior. In other words, you wouldn't allow, in any other context, someone to propose that a particular story that they've heard about someone "sounds like something that someone would do," and then, in the next breath, say that they really don't know how that someone thinks and could never predict or understand any of that someone's thoughts or actions. If you point out the fact that to understand a Holy text as the true sentiment of God is to suggest a knowledge of the mind and motivations of God, then you will back the opponent into a corner to either reject an unquestionable understanding of Holy texts as the true work of God or gods, or to accept that God doesn't just seem to favour the wicked to an inferior mortal mind which cannot conceive of His motivations, but that he does, sometimes, favor the wicked and his actions can be understood and recognized by mortals for what they are.
=====It is best to avoid debating religion in completely philosophical terms. The first step to any religious debate is to point out the fact that religion is so devoid of any real information or fact that it cannot legitimately be debated in academic or scientific terms. To do so would mean to use physical evidence to dispute a metaphysical idealism. Obviously, disproving claims and stories found in religious texts with facts and information is easy -- sometimes too easy, causing your audience to be confused by the simplicity. Religiously minded people are more receptive to philosophical ideas; so, starting a religious debate with some philosophical criticism is a good way to prime the opponent for more academic questions and information later in the debate.
=====The rewording of this classic philosophical proposition strengthens the point that is being expressed and removes many of classic philosophic rebuttals. It leaves three possibilities on the table between you and your opponent. One -- God does play favorites, and sometimes his favorites are the wicked. This possibility would be uncomfortable to even the most profoundly devout zealot. Two -- God does not share your definition of right and wrong and is rewarding and punishing people for reasons other than what is read in Holy texts. This possibility means that the Holy texts are incorrect, fallible and, thusly, not the word of an infallible God. Three -- God does not punish or reward anyone, wicked or good. Again, a possibility that would suggest that the stories in the Holy texts never actually took place or that God stopped actively caring about three-thousand years ago. All three possibilities turn the tide of any philosophical religious debate in the atheist's favor and create the leverage needed to ask more concrete, scientific, and academic questions that can genuinely create an irrefutable impact.