Dovid Kornreich's response to Q&A #2

Skeptitcher Rebbe said...

Dovid Kornreich: You stated this in your opening comments

"But when you are informed from a trustworthy source that this is in fact the will of the Creator of the Universe, you are morally bound to obey. No-one can demand of G-d that he must be allowed to continue living. What moral imperative can claim a free-undeserved gift? G-d can insist—at any moment-- that the time of the free gift of life that He has been generously providing is up. Our rational conclusion against the morality of human sacrifice must be temporarily put aside in favor of the truth of the situation at hand."

Your assumption is that G-d is the foundation of morality. If that was the case then G-d could command anything and then that would be moral. G-d could command people to eat humans alive, rape children, torture kittens and worship idols and then that according to your assumption would be moral. The absurdity in this is clear.

If you object to say that G-d could not say that then how so? You can't say because G-d is good and wouldn't command people to do evil things because that would mean G-d would be bound by a certain morality. If morality comes from G-d then G-d must be able to say all of the above commands and then they must be morally right. If that is not the case then G-ds commands are not the foundation of morality.

I think that you have completely ignored the central line which formed the basis of my argument:

"What moral imperative can claim an undeserved gift?"

This rhetorical question applies equally to God as it does to man. I am not asserting that God is the foundation of morality. Even from a priori concepts of morality without the Torah--which can be applied to God as well, God cannot be demanded of by man to extend an undeserved free gift.
Just as you cannot demand free gifts from other human beings.
Imagine you have an infinite supply of cash just lying around and you decide to give your son a stipend of $1,000 a month-- purely out of the kindness of your heart. You sign no contract and make no commitments to supply this monthly stipend indefinitely. Now one fine day, you decide enough free gifts. You abruptly stop the payments. Does your son have any moral claim on you to continue providing him with that stipend?
I dont think so.
In exactly the same way, I am making the observation that God owes no man "a right to life". Man certainly cannot decide to take away another mans life-- because he isnt supplying it! But God is supplying it--as a free, undeserved gift to us. And being in that position, God has the moral right to stop supplying it at any moment. Not because God is the foundation of what is moral, but simply because its His free gift to withhold at will.
So I agree that God cannot command torture of another human being unless it was morally deserved by the victim. But ending a human life (painlessly) is certainly within Gods moral capital to dictate.

You raise another point:

Thus I would question this statement in particular "No-one can demand of G-d that he must be allowed to continue living". Why not? No ones life is dependent on outside beings determination. Life has intrinsic worth, which is why things life murder and torture are wrong. G-d has no more right to take a life than anyone else.

I would dispute the assertion that "no ones life is dependent on outside beings determination". From the religious perspective, this is simply not true. If God created everything ex-nihilo, then all life is dependent on its creator's determination. Even if God is not the foundation of morality.
Indeed, what gives life its intrinsic worth? Where does this idea come from? Does this apply to animal life? Insect life? Vegetable life?
I think we can only assign inherent value to life on the basis of its creator's determination.
The secularist is completely without guidance regarding how to assign value and and how much value to life. And it has led to all kinds of animal rights movements which we all realize go to absurd extremes in their attempts to equate animal life with human life.

To your next comment:

Skeptitcher Rebbe said...

DK: To my above comment if I may: Would it not be better to say that G-d is a reflection of moral values rather than the creator of moral values? G-d can't make something right just by saying it is right, but rather G-d is always good which means that G-d will never command anything immoral. This can be compared to what is written in Devarim 13 "2. If there will arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of a dream, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, 3. and the sign or the wonder of which he spoke to you happens, [and he] says, "Let us go after other gods which you have not known, and let us worship them,"" Even if there is information from a trustworthy source, so trustworthy that it makes accurate predictions and performs open miracles we still will reject it on the basis that it contradicts what G-d would ever ask for. Thus if we can determine that G-d would never ask for a child sacrifice since G-d is good and would never ask for something evil, such as a child sacrifice, then regardless of the convincing evidence produced by the trustworthy source aren't we compelled to reject that source?

Once you acknowledge that God as supplier of life is acting within his rights to end the free gift of life to any human being, then this command to Avraham becomes a moral command and is not evil in the slightest. Just as it is not evil to stop paying out free, undeserved, monthly stipends.

E-Man said...

So, now that Dovid specifically said he is not confined to believe that the world is only 5771 years old are you going to debate a new topic? Also, I am happy to hear that Dovid retracted from the view that Homosexuals should "theoretically" (whatever that means in this context) commit suicide. This is clearly contradicted by many sources explicitly.

I suspect that Mr. Pelta will not be able to find another opponent with which to debate the truth of Orthodox Judaism. This is because he has insisted that the opponent defend any position which Mr. Pelta determines to be normative to Orthodox Judaism--even if the opponent himself does not subscribe to that position. (This means even Rabbi Slifkin himself can be held to defend the position that the universe is only 5771 years old.) Quite an absurd condition for a debate if you ask me.

What "theoretically" means is להלכה ולא למעשה --this is common halachic terminology. Extensive training in Talmud accustoms one to take theoretical halachic positions constantly-- and defend them vigorously by mounting as much support as possible-- without being committed to them in practice whatsoever.

I agree that for those outside the beis midrash, it does seem peculiar to make such an elaborate, dramatic presentation of a halachic theory, but my goals were also to educate about the gravity of the behavior in terms of technical halacha. This explains the ultra- serious tone of the post.

Although Mr. Pelta found comments which misunderstood the thrust of my post, I find it quite noteworthy that all those comments come from sites which have a particular ax to grind against Orthodox Judaism and were predictably quite happy to find an opinion which they could portray as morally reprehensible.
If one will survey comments by other, disinterested parties, the picture becomes more balanced. I seem to be dangerous only in the minds of those who have a keen personal or ideological interest in portraying me as dangerous to the public.

By the way, E-man, where are the many explicit sources which contradict the theory? I would gladly add more to my list of two.

I wish to thank Baruch Pelta for giving me the opportunity to eliminate so much misinformation that has been going around the blogs for years and for being such a challenging debating opponent.

Anyone who wishes to further discuss any of the points raised in this debate is welcome to email me at:
dovidkornreich@gmail.com

Dovid Kornreich's Response to Q&A

The questions posed by Dan, Yaakov, "Interested Observer" etc. are a perfect opportunity to explode a few irresponsible myths that have been generated and repeated over and over again by Rabbi Slifkin’s propaganda campaign.

I have examined all the written statements of the gedolim regarding Rabbi Slifkin’s books and they are very general and vague in nature.

http://toriah.org/articles/slifkin-ban.pdf

They mention insult to the honor of Chazal, and an undermining of our mesorah and the foundations of our emunah.

I don’t see why I should personally accept the second- and third-hand reports of unnamed bystanders, underlings, handlers, or agitators as clarifications of what they were declaring to be kefirah.

I have seen what happens when you do that and it should teach all of us a valuable lesson regarding how unreliable such reports truly are.

http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/ravelyashiv.html

(As an aside, Rabbi Reuven Schmeltzer has compiled a very useful handbook of important source material which enjoys a very solid consensus of support --regarding its publication, dissemination and popularization. These sources must be reckoned with.

But Rabbi Schmeltzer has his own ideas regarding the degree of authoritativeness of each individual citation and position which he included.

I don’t believe a haskama on a source book covers that kind of delicate assessment. He has his ideas, I have mine.

In any event, we have also seen that haskamos are virtually worthless. So we have no choice but to think for ourselves here.)

Contrary to how they have been portrayed on the internet, gedolim are not simple-minded fools. They know quite well that Chazal openly testify about their own mistakes (sometimes grave) throughout Shas, that they are in no way infallible, and that Ma’aseh Bereishis is an extremely delicate and enigmatic parsha in the Torah.
These are not subjects that can be accurately summarized and communicated in a few, short, simple public pronouncements.

(The only gadol I saw in all the kol kores addressing the age of the universe was Rav Sheiner. There is no hint of unanimity on the topic. Rav Reuven Feinstein’s views are little more than hearsay, and even if confirmed, will not establish unanimity either.)

After checking the books for myself (with permission from my Rosh Yeshivah) I quickly discovered how correct the charge of heresy was on both accounts. I could literally write a few hundred page book documenting what exactly is kefira in the books and why.
When I say that I am grateful to Rabbi Slifkin for providing me with this opportunity to delve deeply into the ikkrei emuna and achieve significant clarity, I mean it sincerely without any sarcasm. It has been a tremendous learning experience for me.

Rabbi Aharon Feldman—who I take for granted would not hold views contrary to a “unanimous view of the gedolim”, similarly took it upon himself to survey the banned books for himself to see what was heretical about them, and came up with his justifications.
Someone actually linked to it in the comments as some sort of challenge to my earlier post, but it is clear support for everything I've written here.

In the course of explaining why Rabbi Slifkin's approach to Bereishis is heretical, he sanctions many different approaches along the way.

He wrote the following:

http://www.toriah.com/pdf/R.Feldman-On-Slifkin.pdf

There are two problematic theses in Slifkin’s books which brought about the ban.

These are: a) his approach to cosmology (the creation of the world), and b) his approach to the credibility of the Sages. Each of these need to be examined separately.

THE COSMOLOGY ISSUE

Most scientists believe that the world is 15 billion years old, and that the human species evolved from lower life forms. The Torah says that it is less than 6000 years and that man was created individually at the end of Creation.

It is quite obvious that the world appears older than 6000 years. One needs only

look up to the sky and see stars billions of light years away for evidence of this. On the other hand, for a Torah Jew, because his ancestors experienced a revelation by G-d of Torah at Mount Sinai and the Jewish People bears an unbroken tradition of that revelation, there is no doubt that the Torah is true. If so, the appearances which make the world seem older must have some explanation.

In truth, explanations are elusive. Creation does not follow the laws of nature.

According to natural law nothing can come into existence ex nihilo; therefore by its very definition creation is an act which defies the laws of nature. The apparent age of the universe is based on observations made after the laws of nature came into being, and applying these observations to nature as it existed during the days of Creation is therefore illogical; for perhaps during Creation time passed at a greater speed, or perhaps natural reactions proceeded at a faster pace.

In spite of these considerations, several explanations have been offered by the

great commentaries of the previous generations. Basing themselves on Midrashim which say that G-d created many worlds before ours and destroyed them, some say that the earth upon which these worlds were built was not destroyed.2 Accordingly, the world is as old

2 Tiferes Yisrael in Derush Ohr Hachayim, the end of Sanhedrin in the standard edition of Mishnayos.

Some vigorously dispute his theory, explaining that the Midrashim refer not to previous physical worlds,

Monday June 27, 2005 1130PM

3

as the first world created while the six days of creation of the Torah refer to our present world.

Along the same lines, sources in Kabbala state there are seven cycles in creation and that we are in the third cycle or, some say, in the fifth. Leshem Shevo VeAchlama,3 basing himself on Kabbala, states (without addressing the issue of the age of universe) that each of the 24 “hours” of the day during the days of Creation was at least a thousand times the length of present day hours. In fact, he says, longer “hours” continued, albeit at a reduced pace, until the Generation of the Mabbul (Flood). Still others have explained that though there were 24 of our present day hours in each day, but that time flowed at a different, more compressed speed during the days of creation; in other words more events occurred during the course of a day even though a day lasted from the light of one day to that of the next.4

According to all these explanations, the world could appear to be vastly old and yet would still not be older than the age which the Torah gives it. All of these interpretations do not distort in any way the plain meaning of the Torah.

Slifkin has a totally different explanation. Rather than saying that the six days of creation were literal days, i.e. periods of time extending from the beginning of one day to the next, which is the position of the above explanations and of virtually every commentary on Torah, he posits that they refer to actual 15 billion literal years during which the world evolved from the first Big Bang until the creation of man.

The six days of creation, explains Slifkin, do not refer to the real world but are concepts of creation which existed in G-d’s mind.5 Accordingly, there were no six separate acts of creation, as the Torah teaches, but a seamless evolution put into action at the first moment of Creation, a single act which expressed six Divine concepts…

…These cosmological explanations have no basis in any commentary or Midrash

and clearly violate the plain meaning of the Torah. Like the famous archer who painted the targets after the arrows landed and thereby ensured himself a perfect bulls-eye each time, Slifkin uses questionable sources as proofs for his a priori belief that the theories of modern science which he cites are indisputable fact.

Interpretations which have no basis in the Written or Oral Torah and which contradict the tradition of the Midrashim and the commentaries are perversions of Torah ideas and may be classified as megaleh panim baTorah shelo ke-halacha (distorted interpretations of the Torah) which are forbidden to study. Even if the Torah authorities who signed the ban based their ruling on excerpts which were translated before them, it would therefore appear that they were not misled. They were perfectly justified in terming his views inauthentic interpretations of Torah.

The upshot, I believe, is as follows.

There are points regarding Ma’aseh Bereishis about which there is a clear and unanimous mesorah, and there points which are unclear.

Special creation of all the major biological life forms and of Man from the primordial Earth is one of those points which have a clear, unanimous mesorah starting with Chazal, through the rishonim till the achronim. The Rambam in the Moreh declared that Man's creation without biological parents is a foundation of the Torah. (Guide III 50)
It is this clear, unanimous aspect of the Creation narrative which Rabbi Slifkin's approaches have run afoul.

But the time scale of existence before (and perhaps during) the period of Divine creative activity is one of those points which, as Rabbi Feldman points out, are unclear and have no single normative approach that Orthodox Jewry needs to defend.

For even more elaboration, consider the following:

Rabbi Zvi Lampel has written an excellent, though narrowly focused summary of the positions of the rishonim regarding the topic of the six-days of Creation.

Here:

http://toriah.org/Torah/RZL/RZLdaysOfCreation.pdf

What he emphasizes as emerging as unanimous among rishonim is not that the universe is a total of 5771 years + six days.

What he emphasizes as emerging as unanimous among rishonim is that the six days of Divine creative activity can in no way be stretched or distorted to accommodate billions of years of gradual evolution and natural development of the biological (plant and animal) world as described by modern scientific hypotheses of the origins of life on Earth.

I believe this is the basic position of the gedolim--formulated in response to Rabbi Slifkin’s eviscerating and fossilizing the Jewish position regarding Bereishis in order to avoid any conflict with modern scientific speculations.

But regarding the age of the inanimate substance out of which the Earth and the fullness thereof was fashioned directly by G-d, is a completely open question among the rishonim. Indeed, some have contemplated the hypothetical possibility of its infinity!

In all honesty, I don’t think any gadol will object to the Rashbam’s view that the period of Tohu VaVohu was left by the Chumash as an undefined amount of time. The Seforno, Ibn Ezra and Rabbeinu Bachye also leave room for this possibility. Especially since there was apparently no consistent rate of change—and perhaps no discernable change whatsoever—regarding this matter, making estimates of time elapsing during this period completely futile.

So again, I’m afraid Mr. Pelta was quite mistaken in assuming that he can find an easy target in the 5771 issue in general, and he is seriously mistaken in assuming freelance debaters like me need to pay some kind of price in terms of credibility for the fact that there are others who uphold such a view.
If he wants an easier target, debate them, not me.

No where in my article is the date 5771 mentioned.
One need not be a "young earth creationist" in order to debunk the validity of the scientific extrapolations that under-gird "old earth" evidence. Debunking that evidence is useful in a number of ways, as we shall see in the final summary. (Note: I just realized there will be no final summary, so it will have to wait for another time...)

In summary, contrary to the repeated mantras of Rabbi Slifkin, there is no single definitively normative opinion of the banners to speak of in regards to the age of the universe issue.
As Rabbi Feldman said, if you can conform to the meaning of the pesukim, midrashim and rishonim, you have a normative approach.

Rabbi Slifkin's approach of mythologizing the entire narrative of Ma'aseh Bereshis (and perhaps beyond) cannot even claim that much for itself--and that’s why it was banned as "megaleh panim baTorah shelo kehalacha. I am not an official spokesman for him, but I believe my Rosh Yeshiva generally concurs with this assessment.

I will try to post responses to the remaining excellent questions in the coming days. Either as a separate post or in an update to this one.

Answers by Baruch Pelta

E-man notes that Dovid isn't "confined to believe that the world is only 5771 years old," but I never said in this debate that Dovid was confined as such. The remark Dovid took issue with was my statement that in his view, the opinions of various gedolim and the stated opinion of Rabbi Gottlieb in Young Earth Creationism must be normative. Obviously, Dovid does have to consider Young Earth Creationism to be a Torah True opinion (as it is the opinion of Rabbi Dovid Feinstein, Rabbi Gottlieb, and many others) which is justifiable. That was what I wrote in the quote he takes issue with and he has nowhere contradicted it here. Dovid has in his writings consistently dodged the question of whether he himself believes in Young Earth Creationism, but contra his own assertions, he actually slipped up and adopted Young Earth Creationism in an opinion piece he wrote in the Bnei Brak Yated Ne'eman newspaper (and later reprinted on one of his blogs):
...mainstream scientists don't really accept the burden of proving the young earth evidence to be grossly misunderstood. They feel that it is enough to propose theoretical possibilities...We don't need to assume the burden to disprove the old earth science. If we use the same approach, it is sufficient for us to assert, based on Chazal, that star motion was not constant throughout all time, and that the igneous rocks of the Creation period simply did not form naturally from magma. And/or, it is sufficient to assert, based on Chazal, that the weather conditions which form the annual layering of lake varves and ice cores were not constant throughout all time...We ought to have enough confidence in our mulit-million-man- mesorah to offset all the theoretical evidence that relies exclusively on tenuous extrapolations of literally astronomical proportions.

As for the remark that gays should commit suicide, I must heartily agree with E-man and note that I am happy Dovid has here retracted it. Dovid writes that it was "clear" that he meant it only theoretically and I have little doubt that he did mean to write it as a theoretical recommendation (whatever that means), but what he clearly wrote is that suicide is a pragmatic option and just about all of the commentary I saw from readers generally converged on that point (see the posts and comments at those links). After all, why else would Dovid have written the following?

Let me repeat: if any therapy will allow the Orthodox homosexual to survive his existence without succumbing to temptation, then this suicide option simply does not apply. This option is only for someone who knows his strengths and weaknesses and is afraid that he may G-d forbid stumble and violate one of the most severe Torah prohibitions.

(The fact that Dovid apparently doesn't recognize the assertions his own writings make and thus how they will be read only confirms my assertion that he is dangerous). Contra Dovid's own assertion, he did not actually retract this assertion in the follow-up piece he wrote the following year. He only retracted his belief that it is a "universally sanctioned" option. But I already noted that in my rebuttal.

To answer the final part of E-man's query, no, I will not be offering Dovid another opportunity to debate me.

Thanks to Dovid for participating in this debate. But a heartfelt thank you to you, dear readers, for your careful consideration of the arguments. Remember, I can be reached at baruch.pelta@gmail.com .

Q&A

Alright, so now is the part where readers have a few days to ask questions. Please comment here with your questions. I will close the comments section at some point Saturday night and then we will answer your questions in separate posts.

--Baruch

Dovid Kornreich's Rebuttal to Baruch Pelta's Presentation

I will paste Baruch Pelta's presentation here in full so avoid the necessity to scroll down to read it. (For the life of me, I do not understand why Baruch expected me to use my previous presentation as a forum to address his presentation. It stands completely on its own, independent of his presentation)

Opening Argument by Baruch Pelta

Rabbi Dovid Kornreich and I agree on very little, but there is at least one thing I think we agree on. If our lives are to be reliant on The Torah and the rabbinic literature because of Divine rules given at Sinai, we must accept the following opinions as normative: humans did not evolve from a common ancestor of chimpanzees and the universe is no older than 5,771 years. I am aware that my friend Rabbi Slifkin has attempted to reconcile science with Torah and I would be happy to debate anybody on the Torah interpreted that way too, but for the purposes of this debate, I think it is sufficient to note that I agree with my opponent and his interpretation. The accepted gedolim, Rabbi Moshe Meiselman (Kornreich’s rebbe), Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb (the man Kornreich has written would do best in a debate for the veracity of the Torah), and many others agree with us! Gottlieb has written the following gem about 15 years ago. It sums up the Torah view better than I can:

“The solution to the contradiction between the age of the earth and the universe according to science and the Jewish date of 5755 years since Creation is this: the real age of the universe is 5755 years, but it has misleading evidence of greater age. The bones, artifacts, partially decayed radium, potassium-argon, uranium, the red-shifted light from space, etc. - all of it points to a greater age which nevertheless is not true. G-d put these things in the universe and they lead many to the false conclusion of a much greater age. I said the evidence is misleading. Does that mean that G-d is tricking us? Not at all: He told us the truth! Only someone who [perversely] decides to ignore the statement of the Creator and rely only on what he can investigate will be lead to a false conclusion.”
There you go! Every piece of evidence we have which converges may be dismissed because of what the Torah said!
I don’t know of any book or website where this Biblical model of our young universe has been fully explained in a rational manner. What about the fossil record? What about all of the things which Gottlieb mentioned? To quote a question from Rabbi Slifkin to this model, “From when to when did Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous dinosaurs, respectively, live?” How about the Sumerians who historians maintain invented glue a thousand years before the universe was allegedly created? Folks, I just think that these are the sorts of questions which a Torah Jew would have to address to convince modern thinking secular individuals that he has the truth. I put the challenge forthrightly to Dovid to propound his model of the universe as a plausible one; otherwise, the Torah doesn't seem very plausible.

Conditional upon our debate mirroring some National Forensic League format or a format which Hitchens has debated a proposition in over the past ten years, I agreed to defer to Dovid with regards to how the debate was to be conducted. He asked that I come up with an official format to mirror (I chose the Hitchens-Hitchens debate on the proposition that God does not exist and he is not great at the Hauenstein Center in 2008), requested that it be text-based, and decided that I should go firs and that he should have the last word. Finally, he wrote that the maximum word count for our opening arguments should be 5,000. I have not seen it necessary to utilize this limit because the opinion of Young Earth Creationism which both Dovid and I agree the Torah normalizes seems to be such a simple and basic falsehood. Should Dovid choose to utilize far more words than I did, readers should understand that is his prerogative. I beg to propose the motion which stands in my name.

It is quite unfortunate that Mr. Pelta, in his desire to debate someone with a greater standing in the Orthodox world than myself, has decided to impose the views of Rabbi Gottleib upon me. And given Mr. Pelta's prowess in internet research, it is inexcusable that he did not bother to find and link to any of the posts and articles I have written on the topics in question. Had he done so, one could easily verify that the views which he has attributed to me are clearly not my own.

I'm afraid he is quite mistaken in assuming that:

there is at least one thing I think we agree on. If our lives are to be reliant on The Torah and the rabbinic literature because of Divine rules given at Sinai, we must accept the following opinions as normative: ...the universe is no older than 5,771 years.

I wish to state for the record (again) that I have never personally advocated Gosse's Emphalos approach to the previous eras of pre-history and have never suggested that the total age of the universe is no older than 5771.

I have so far gone through three stages in my view of the age of the universe question and it may be of value to readers to summarize them in brief.

In high school I was introduced by Rabbi Leibel Resnick to the Tifferes Yisrael's approach which is elaborated upon in great detail in Rabbi Dovid Brown's Mysteries of Creation. That book bears the approbation of Rav Moshe Feinstein (although nowadays we know how much that's worth--especially since Rav Moshe didn't read English)

It accommodates a greater age to the universe--much older than 5771, and can be seen as a prediction by Chazal of the discovery of artifacts of prehistory in the geological and fossil record. It is based on Chazal, The Kuzari I, 67, and Rav Hirsch (second approach)-- besides the Tifferes Yisrael who popularized it.
It does not insist that the Universe is 5771 years old.

With much gratitude to Rabbi Slifkin and his well publicized resistance to the ban on his books, I was spurred to do further research on the topic.

This led me to discover the Rav Hirsch (first approach)/Rav Schwab proposition that all the artifacts of prehistory discovered by science are genuine, but the rate of physical processes occurring during period of creation was not fixed. Therefore, all the physical events which occurred during this six day period are not calculable in principle by scientific measurements which, without exception, rely on extrapolation from current consistency into the past.

This is not a dismissal of the evidence but an independent evaluation of it which renders all the scientific assumptions underlying the methods employed in the dating and the descriptions previous eras completely unreliable and irrelevant to the religious position.

This approach is also based on Chazal and the standard reading of the Rambam in Moreh II, 30.
It does not propose that the Universe is only 5771 years old. it could be anywhere between 5771 and billions of years old. The rate of physical processes by which to measure time elapsing during the six unnatural days of creation remains an unknown.

More recently, I was introduced to a third approach by my Rosh Yeshivah which focuses on the difficulties of calculating time with any possibility of accuracy before there is any consistent, standard measurement of change. This approach turns the tables completely and challenges that the scientific attempt to measure the passage of prehistoric time, before bothering to establish when the cesium atom started to decay at a steady rate, is incoherent.

This problem of finding a standard rate of change by which to measure the elapsing of time is actually discussed by the Ibn Ezra, Rambam, Ramban, and Rabbeinu Bachye-- revolving around a statement found in numerous midrashim that the Torah existed 2,000 years before creation. And that a day on G-d's extra-cosmic clock is a thousand years.

Again, this approach does not propose that the Universe is only 5771 years old. It could be anywhere between 5771 and billions of years old. The rate of change by which to measure time elapsing throughout the period before and during creation remains an unknown.

So there is really no reason in the world for me to adopt or defend the position that the universe is only 5771years old.

What is more puzzling is that Mr. Pelta who monitors my writings quite closely, should be well aware of all this.

As a consequence, Mr. Pelta's major focus in his presentation is built upon a completely false premise. It should be thrown out and replaced with one that is addressing the views of the individual with whom he is actually debating.

His minor reference to my alleged advocating of homosexuals committing suicide is also a serious distortion. The original post and comments made it clear that it was a theoretical exploration of the halachic permissibility only. I have never made this suggestion on a practical level to anyone. I clearly presented it as a polemic againist the liberal Jewish movements which condone homosexually on pseudo-halachic grounds.
Later clarifications on the original post made this even more explicit. After further research into the topic I formally retracted from this possibility even on theoretical grounds, over a month ago.

All this occurred well before Mr. Pelta posted his presentation above. One wonders if Mr. Pelta's more recent characterization of me as being "really quite dangerous" is a disingenuous one designed to obfuscate rather than inform and enlighten.

Taking all of this into account, Mr. Pelta's misrepresentations of my views in his presentation quite possibly qualifies as libel.

For someone who wants to build a future career in academic history and wants his reports of people's views to be taken seriously, this is a serious charge.

As a courtesy, and in the interest of genuine dialogue, I will allow Mr. Pelta to retract his presentation in full, replace it with a new one, and subject it to a new rebuttal from me.

Rebuttal by Baruch Pelta

Dovid sarcastically makes the following observation: “Baruch has enjoyed my hospitality and the hospitality of many Orthodox Jews over the years-- all our irrational/immoral beliefs notwithstanding. Rest assured that in real life, your average Orthodox Jew is quite harmless.” I hope this conversation doesn’t devolve from here, but I’m afraid that it is my moral duty to point out that Dovid and people like him really are quite dangerous. Dovid wrote a blog post in April of 2009 which asserted that failing change therapy or the ability to be celibate, the homosexual should commit suicide (after consulting a “genuinely Orthodox rabbi” and a “good frum therapist” of course). A month ago, Dovid found some rishonim who disagree and now notes that his proposal isn’t “universally sanctioned.” Dovid’s an educator. He works for Yeshivat Ohr Somayach as a rebbe there. He teaches teenagers just out of high school. Parents send their children to this institution and pay it money without knowing about these sorts of rabbis. Before considering the Orthodox educational options, I encourage you – as Dovid properly and rightly did – to open your mind and research.

Parallel to Dovid’s offer, I should note that anybody who is considering Orthodox Judaism or seriously considering leaving Orthodox Judaism may email me at baruch.pelta@gmail.com and I will help as I can. If you truly wish to engage in research on the issues and do a proper search for truth, it is your duty to yourself to independently research any claims you might hear from rabbis such as Dovid; if you’re in touch with a rabbi, you should be in touch with somebody who has read up on these claims on the other side. If it is a philosophical claim, somebody who has read a bit of this philosophy; if it is a claim about the Bible, a Bible expert. If you truly think Orthodox Judaism is the right religion at that point, then I can only agree to disagree. I say this as somebody who decided to become Orthodox in the middle of the North Georgia Mountains and originally with absolutely no support; I stayed in for about 5 years. I understand how rational it can seem to the person looking for something.

Now back to the debate. Dovid claims that Rabbi Gottlieb has presented superior evidence for the veracity for Judaism. I do hope Gottlieb will publish his argument for academia someday (as university theologians Allister Mcgrath, John Haught, and Richard Swinburne publish their Christian apologetics), so we can see how it will stand up to scrutiny from other university philosophers as well. If we are as open-minded as Dovid would like us to be, surely the argument has nothing to fear from philosophical scrutiny from Ivy League minds; it will convince even in the face of any opposition (as Dovid hopes to convince you of Young Earth Creationism in the face of scientific opposition). But anyhow I think the argument’s pretty weak. I suggest readers who actually find Gottlieb’s arguments convincing read through Gottlieb’s lulu.com book and then read doctoral student Larry Tanner’s refutation.

Anyways, at the end of everything, I don’t see how Dovid has addressed my question. What Einstein believed regarding Quantum Theory doesn’t address the creationist argument that the universe began approximately a thousand years after the Sumerians (according to historians, anyway) invented glue. We don’t know that the universe is older than six thousand years old through one philosophical idea or through one scientific estimate. We know it through many independent and reliable methods of understanding our universe. All of them coincide to present a picture of the universe which is quite old.

The 17^th century rabbi Yaakov Reischer was as skeptical of non-Torah knowledge as Dovid is. And so, as late as the 17^th century, Reischer noted that the nations of the world could not be relied on for their knowledge since after all, the “primary aspect of their words are built upon the idea that the world is like a ball, against the implications of the sugya of our Shas” [Rabbi Josh Waxman’s translation]. Rabbi Reischer’s belief in Torah, like Dovid’s, was absolutely sincere, leading him to believe as late as the 17^th century that the world was flat; I have no doubt who he would support in this debate.

Opening Argument By Dovid Kornreich

What Separates Us

One prevailing attitude I’ve seen a lot in the Jewish blogosophere is the emphasis on the rational and ridiculing the irrational when responding to reports, ideas, beliefs, and values.

To me, this seems understandable only by default--when the truth of the matter is inaccessible or unobtainable. Rational analysis is the best tool we have when faced with uncertainty or lack adequate access to all the relevant information.

But when the truth of the matter is known with relative certainty, and there is nothing substantial left to analyze on the fundamental level, the question of rational vs. irrational seems to be irrelevant.
Let me illustrate this with some examples.
The Rambam in his classic rational philosophical work Moreh HaNevuchim Book III chapter 24 acknowledged that the Divine command to Avraham to sacrifice his son Isaac is a testimony to the enormous power of truth inherent in prophesy. It is more compelling than pure reason.
I will quote the preceding paragraph to provide greater context, and bold the most relevant passages.

The passage, "For God is come to prove you, and that his fear may be before your faces, that ye sin not" (ibid. xx. 20), expresses the same idea as is expressed in Deuteronomy (xiii. 4) in reference to a person who prophesies in the name of idols, namely in the words: "For the Lord your God proveth you to know whether ye love the Lord." We have already explained the meaning of the latter passage. In the same sense Moses said to the Israelites when they stood round Mount Sinai: "Do not fear; the object of this great sight which you perceived is that you should see the truth with your own eyes. When the Lord your God, in order to show your faithfulness to Him, will prove you by a false prophet, who will tell you the reverse of what you have heard, you will remain firm and your steps will not slide. If I had come as a messenger as you desired, and had told you that which had been said unto me and which you had not heard, you would perhaps consider as true what another might tell you in opposition to that which you heard from me. But it is different now, as you have heard it in the midst of the great sight."
p. 306
The account of Abraham our father binding his son, includes two great ideas or principles of our faith. First, it shows us the extent and limit of the fear of God. Abraham is commanded to perform a certain act, which is not equalled by any surrender of property or by any sacrifice of life, for it surpasses everything that can be done, and belongs to the class of actions which are believed to be contrary to human feelings. He had been without child, and had been longing for a child; he had great riches, and was expecting that a nation should spring from his seed. After all hope of a son had already been given up, a son was born unto him. How great must have been his delight in the child! how intensely must he have loved him! And yet because he feared God, and loved to do what God commanded, he thought little of that beloved child, and set aside all his hopes concerning him, and consented to kill him after a journey of three days. If the act by which he showed his readiness to kill his son had taken place immediately when he received the commandment, it might have been the result of confusion and not of consideration. But the fact that he performed it three days after he had received the commandment, proves the presence of thought, proper consideration, and careful examination of what is due to the Divine command and what is in accordance with the love and fear of God. There is no necessity to look for the presence of any other idea or of anything that might have affected his emotions. For Abraham did not hasten to kill Isaac out of fear that God might slay him or make him poor, but solely because it is man's duty to love and to fear God, even without hope of reward or fear of punishment. We have repeatedly explained this. The angel, therefore, says to him, "For now I know," etc. (ibid. ver. 12), that is, from this action, for which you deserve to be truly called a God-fearing man, all people shall learn how far we must go in the fear of God. This idea is confirmed in Scripture: it is distinctly stated that one sole thing, fear of God, is the object of the whole Law with its affirmative and negative precepts, its promises and its historical examples, for it is said, "If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this Law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, the Lord thy God," etc. (Deut. xxviii. 58). This is one of the two purposes of the ‘akedah (sacrifice or binding of Isaac).

p. 307
[paragraph continues] ‘akedah ("sacrifice") should be taught through Abraham and a man like Isaac. For Abraham was the first to teach the Unity of God, to establish the faith (in Him], to cause it to remain among coming generations, and to win his fellow-men for his doctrine; as Scripture says of him: "I know him, that he will command," etc. (Gen. viii. 19). In the same manner as he was followed by others in his true and valuable opinions when they were heard from him, so also the principles should be accepted that may be learnt from his actions; especially from the act by which he confirmed the principle of the truth of prophecy, and showed how far we must go in the fear and the love of God.

We need to appreciate who Avraham was in order to see why this was such a powerful demonstration against reason.

Jewish tradition has it that Avraham arrived at the truths of the universe through his incredible intellect --unaided by tradition or prophesy-- at a very young age. This intellect was strong enough to withstand the ideology of an entire civilization and stare down the threat of death by burning. This midrash and much of the Talmudic tradition shows that the Jewish people put tremendous stock in the power of the intellect to pierce through the fog of uncertainty and arrive at the deepest truths. We don’t consider it rational to offer human sacrifice.
But when you are informed from a trustworthy source that this is in fact the will of the Creator of the Universe, you are morally bound to obey. No-one can demand of G-d that he must be allowed to continue living. What moral imperative can claim a free-undeserved gift? G-d can insist—at any moment-- that the time of the free gift of life that He has been generously providing is up. Our rational conclusion against the morality of human sacrifice must be temporarily put aside in favor of the truth of the situation at hand.

Very often, in our personal and professional lives, we are confronted with a conflict between what we would like to believe and what the reality is. I think it is obvious that the rational thing to do in that case is to conform to the reality and abandon our personal preferences.

The ironic thing is that this applies even when our personal preference is to be rational and the reality confronts us with the irrational and the absurd. When that happens, the irrational path of action or belief becomes rational and the rational path of action or belief becomes irrational.

An example of this is the different reactions of Feynman and Einstein to Quantum theory.

Feynman acknowledged and embraced the absurdity of Quantum mechanics based on the irrefutable evidence of repeated experiments, while Einstein was known to be hesitant to accept it because of his entrenched belief that “G-d does not play dice”.

"Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one." I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."

It in is this light that we can understand why so many normal, morally refined, intelligent, well educated Jews profess certain beliefs about the world that seem absurd and irrational to the rest of the normal, morally refined, intelligent, well educated people of the world.

The only thing which separates the two groups is not which one can make the claim to be rational, but which one can make claim superior access to the truth about the world.

(One objection to this whole line of reasoning may be that following the truths of Orthodox Judaism will quite possibly lead one to be immoral and irresponsible. After all, don’t we routinely read about how this or that Orthodox Jew engaged in morally repulsive behavior and justified it with religious principles? Shouldn’t we consider the price of accepting Judaism in moral terms and admit that it might be too high?

My response is that this fear can only be entertained by someone who is only exposed to Orthodox Jews via the media and internet.

It is very hard to maintain such a fear when you actually go outside and interact with an Orthodox Jewish community first-hand (without making provocations).

Baruch has enjoyed my hospitality and the hospitality of many Orthodox Jews over the years-- all our irrational/immoral beliefs not withstanding. Rest assured that in real life, your average Orthodox Jew is quite harmless.

Unless your life primarily surrounds the media and internet, this fear should not be an obstacle to seriously considering the claim of Orthodox Judaism to have superior access to the truth.)

Why Orthodox Judaism can claim to have superior access to the truth about the world.

The claim is based on four different lines of evidence:

1. Unlikely predictions of the Torah which came true and other unique features

2. Unique claim of mass revelation and national-scale miracles

3. Demonstrated ability to accurately preserve and transmit reliable historical records for thousands of years

4. The conundrum of Jewish Survival

In order for all these forms of evidence to count in favor of Orthodox Judaism and against all the alternatives, they have to meet certain criteria:

(The following is taken from Rabbi Gottleib’s lectures)

A. Is the selectivity of the evidence based on predictive or explanatory conflict, or on B. superior predictive or explanatory scope? C. Can the second alternative explain what the first predicts? D. Are we sure that the second cannot challenge the claim of the first to explain the observation? E. If it is a matter of scope, can the second add the predictions or explanations of the first to its own content? The answers to these questions determine the extent of support the first alternative receives from the evidence.

The answers to the questions listed above will determine the strength of the evidence. The possibilities are ranked as follows. The best evidence is based upon predictive conflict: The alternatives predict different observations; one is supported by the result and the other weakened. Next best is explanatory conflict: One alternative can explain the observation and the other cannot. Third is greater predictive scope: one alternative predicts the observation that is later verified, and the second alternative makes no prediction at all. Fourth is greater explanatory scope: one alternative can explain the observation after the fact, and the other is silent on that observation. Last is the case in which one alternative predicts the observation and the other can explain it. This provides the least support to the first alternative.

Here is an illustration of the five levels. Imagine two theories of rainfall. If one predicts four inches of rain next year and the other predicts not more than two inches, we have predictive conflict. If four inches fall, that is strong evidence in favor of the first theory. Suppose neither theory can predict the coming rainfall because each relies upon a number of factors that cannot be accurately measured. But after the fact of four inches of rain, the first can cite enough factors to explain it while the second cannot. That counts for the first, though less strongly than a prediction. Suppose the first makes the prediction for North Dakota, and the second is silent because it does not apply when the temperature is below 40 degrees F. When the prediction comes true, that gives the first theory superior predictive scope, which counts somewhat in its favor. If the first theory can only explain the rain after the fact and the second theory is silent, that is even less evidence in favor of the first theory. Finally, if the first theory can predict the result and the second can explain it, that provides minimal support to the first.

SUMMARY

Evidence must be selective, supporting one alternative over others. Evidence counts for an alternative only if it is committed to the evidence - supported by its truth and weakened by its falsity. Predictive evidence is stronger than explanatory evidence. Evidence based upon conflict is stronger than evidence based upon superior scope. If one alternative predicts an observation and the other explains it, that provides minimal evidence for the first. The claim to greater explanatory scope can be challenged by showing the existence of an explanation other than the one claimed.

As it turns out, it can be demonstrated that all the evidence claimed by other religions (and origin science) is not selective evidence whereas Judaism’s evidence is selective.

I realize that the space provided in this blog-debate forum is not adequate to present the all the evidence claimed by origin science, the major theistic religions, and of Judaism, and to show why only Judaism’s evidence is selective in favor of its beliefs against all the alternatives.

You can e-mail me if you want to pursue this investigation in further detail.

What Should Unite Us

Before concluding this short introduction to Judaism’s claim to have superior access to the truth, it is worthwhile to explore the way by which we gather information and make informed, responsible decisions.

Life is too short.

We simply don’t have the luxury of becoming professionally trained archaeologists, historians, anthropologists, geologists, astrophysicists, paleontologists, geneticists, etc. in one lifetime. We simply do not have the requisite time or resources required in order to investigate each of the relevant facts available regarding religion’s claims and science’s claims independently. The unfortunate reality is that we need to rely on many other people’s limited research in their specific area of expertise just in order to amass the relevant facts.

Indeed, it isn’t even obvious which facts are relevant to this investigation and which aren’t!

But there is something which each of us should be capable of doing independently.

Evaluating those facts.

John Lennox made a salient point to Christopher Hitchens—which, to his credit, Hitchens acknowledged openly in subsequent debates. But he acknowledged it only as aside before he dived into his long list of what science has discovered about the world which contradicts standard religious beliefs. It really deserves to be put front and center of any discussion about science vs. religion.

Many of the people making arguments against religion are shirking their responsibility to evaluate the facts presented by the experts in the fields and are placing enormous faith in the judgment of others-- regarding the most important decisions of one’s life.

So many assertions have been bandied about by atheists in debates and blogs in the name of proven science and archaeology and have been presented as solid fact, when, after a little reflection, it can be seen that they are nothing of the kind.

It behooves each person who is genuinely seeking the truth about science and religion to resist following the “group-think” mentality which assumes without justification that all pronouncements of scientists and researchers have equal standing and command authority.

You owe it to yourself to be responsible for shouldering the burden of evaluating the claims of both religion and science as an independent-minded, intelligent individual. The five categories of evidence presented above are one of many powerful tools by which we can competently evaluate those claims and arrive at responsible, rational conclusions.

Opening Argument by Baruch Pelta

Rabbi Dovid Kornreich and I agree on very little, but there is at least one thing I think we agree on. If our lives are to be reliant on The Torah and the rabbinic literature because of Divine rules given at Sinai, we must accept the following opinions as normative: humans did not evolve from a common ancestor of chimpanzees and the universe is no older than 5,771 years. I am aware that my friend Rabbi Slifkin has attempted to reconcile science with Torah and I would be happy to debate anybody on the Torah interpreted that way too, but for the purposes of this debate, I think it is sufficient to note that I agree with my opponent and his interpretation. The accepted gedolim, Rabbi Moshe Meiselman (Kornreich’s rebbe), Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb (the man Kornreich has written would do best in a debate for the veracity of the Torah), and many others agree with us! Gottlieb has written the following gem about 15 years ago. It sums up the Torah view better than I can:

“The solution to the contradiction between the age of the earth and the universe according to science and the Jewish date of 5755 years since Creation is this: the real age of the universe is 5755 years, but it has misleading evidence of greater age. The bones, artifacts, partially decayed radium, potassium-argon, uranium, the red-shifted light from space, etc. - all of it points to a greater age which nevertheless is not true. G-d put these things in the universe and they lead many to the false conclusion of a much greater age. I said the evidence is misleading. Does that mean that G-d is tricking us? Not at all: He told us the truth! Only someone who [perversely] decides to ignore the statement of the Creator and rely only on what he can investigate will be lead to a false conclusion.”
There you go! Every piece of evidence we have which converges may be dismissed because of what the Torah said!
I don’t know of any book or website where this Biblical model of our young universe has been fully explained in a rational manner. What about the fossil record? What about all of the things which Gottlieb mentioned? To quote a question from Rabbi Slifkin to this model, “From when to when did Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous dinosaurs, respectively, live?” How about the Sumerians who historians maintain invented glue a thousand years before the universe was allegedly created? Folks, I just think that these are the sorts of questions which a Torah Jew would have to address to convince modern thinking secular individuals that he has the truth. I put the challenge forthrightly to Dovid to propound his model of the universe as a plausible one; otherwise, the Torah doesn't seem very plausible.

Conditional upon our debate mirroring some National Forensic League format or a format which Hitchens has debated a proposition in over the past ten years, I agreed to defer to Dovid with regards to how the debate was to be conducted. He asked that I come up with an official format to mirror (I chose the Hitchens-Hitchens debate on the proposition that God does not exist and he is not great at the Hauenstein Center in 2008), requested that it be text-based, and decided that I should go firs and that he should have the last word. Finally, he wrote that the maximum word count for our opening arguments should be 5,000. I have not seen it necessary to utilize this limit because the opinion of Young Earth Creationism which both Dovid and I agree the Torah normalizes seems to be such a simple and basic falsehood. Should Dovid choose to utilize far more words than I did, readers should understand that is his prerogative. I beg to propose the motion which stands in my name.

Agreed-Upon Debate Format

1. Opening Argument by Baruch Pelta (maximum word count 5,000)
2. Opening Argument by Rabbi Dovid Kornreich (maximum word count 5,000)
3. Rebuttal by Baruch Pelta (maximum word count 2,500)
4. Rebuttal by Rabbi Dovid Kornreich (maximum word count 2,500)
5. Q&A by commenters (open for three days)
6. Responses by Baruch Pelta
7. Responses by Rabbi Dovid Kornreich