Does Judaism have a double standard?

Question

I have asked two questions on Mi Yodeya regarding discrepancies between claims found in Torah and what we think we know about the world.

One is a small one: Rivers in Genesis

And one is a huge one: How to reconcile Biblical Flood story vs science and history?

How would you explain to someone who does not a priori take for granted that the Torah was given on mount Sinai and that the Rabbis (continuing the Pharisaic tradition in the exile) are the one and only authoritative group of people to interpret what it says, that Judaism does not have a double standard with respect to every other religion?

Here is what I mean. Given almost any other religion - let's say Christianity for example, orthodox Jews don't believe in it for one of two reasons:

1) They didn't investigate it, and therefore they don't care enough or know enough about it.

2) The rabbis found some objection, typically a discrepancy with what it says in Torah, and therefore this objection renders the religion a false one.

Now, Protestant Christianity warns that without proper acceptance of the salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus, a person is likely to go to an eternal hell which, unlike the Jewish hell, lasts forever. It would seem that Pascal's wager would at least make one consider Christianity if one considers Judaism's blessings and curses section in Deuteronomy. If one indeed wishes to "choose life" then one should also be concerned with Christianity, it seems.

And yet, it is largely dismissed by orthodox Jews. I am using Christianity as an example, but we may as well use Islam, which shares a belief in one God but has different requirements in order to get into heaven (depending on who you ask).

So my question, simply put, is this: if orthodox Judaism does not consider any scientific objections or theological objections fatal to its belief system, how come it considers the most introductory objections to Christianity already completely fatal? Isn't this a double standard? As one specific example out of many:

Skepticism vs Judaism: "Do you really think after the flood that killed everyone on earth, animals teleported to Australia, two guys built egypt, and all ecosystems started with 2 predators and 2 prey 4k years ago?" "It's possible, why not. God can do anything, it says in the Mishnah that ..."

Judaism vs Christianity: "Do you really think that God can have three different persons? Do you think he would make the Messiah die on the cross for everyone's sins and change the covenant after telling us that the law is forever?" "Well you see, the Law wasn't abolished, it was fulfilled, and as far as the Messiah and sins, you see you have no temple and no messiah for 2,000 years, maybe you missed him?" "Yeah but the rabbis tell us this is wrong." "Well yeah, Jewish leadership sinned in previous generations so God passed the baton onto the Christian sect, who have the true authority to interpret scripture now."

Basically, the reaction of Jews to the second conversation would be "yeah, ok". But remember - the stakes are greater if they are wrong. If the atheist is wrong, and Orthodox Judaism turns out to be the correct view of the world, he just gets a few months in Gehinnom or his soul is annihilated just as he expects anyway. If the Jew is wrong about Christianity, it would really suck. So what justifies this double standard, if a priori we are not assuming Orthodox Judaism of the Talmud is correct and just being rational?

I think you misunderstand a central critique of other theologies -- Judaism doesn't deny them because of a fatal flaw in them (thus opening itself up to a claim of double standard in denying what others see as fatal flaws in Judaism). It denies them as valid paths to God (for Jews, often) simply because they aren't Judaism. Only when people use aspects of Judaism in a way not reflective of our understanding of Judaism to misrepresent what Judaism is does anyone need to point out the flaws. — rosends, Feb 04 '14 at 16:50
I don't understand the question at all. What double standard? Different problems require different answer... — Double AA, Feb 04 '14 at 17:27
@DoubleAA I will try to clarify the double standard. Someone who starts out not knowing anything about Judaism or Christianity, and learns about the two religions, will find they make claims. A priori, they may have lots of reasons to believe nothing supernatural ever occurred (for example, the consistency of radiometric dating, and the fact that ancient religions claiming supernatural things have been abandoned or disproven). Now say they become convinced that in fact supernatural things described in Torah are true. How do they know at this point that they can still safely rule out others? — Gregory Magarshak, Feb 04 '14 at 17:50
@GregoryMagarshak Just because I believe that trees can live 1,000 years, doesn't mean I believe that humans can live 1,000 years. I'm not understanding your logic here... — avi, Feb 04 '14 at 17:58
@GregoryMagarshak If that was an attempt to clarify it seems to have failed completely. Casting an unbinding close vote... — Double AA, Feb 04 '14 at 17:59
I would like to suggest that you remove Christianity or Islam as examples in your question. Instead ask about the double standard between proof in Science, and proof from a minority opinion in the Talmud, or something like that. — avi, Feb 04 '14 at 18:11
"Now say they become convinced that in fact supernatural things described in Torah are true. How do they know at this point that they can still safely rule out others?" They don't. If religion is a function of rational explanation and not belief then it is subject to rational refutation. No other religious system would be any more or less persuasive. If I felt that I could move beyond Judaism then why stop at Christianity? Be a Raelian. — rosends, Feb 04 '14 at 18:18
@avi interesting. I guess, but minority opinions in talmud don't really matter as much. The big question is how do I make the jump from Skepticism -> Judaism, and then somehow refuse to make the jump from Judaism to anything else? During that first jump, I felt like I had lots of evidence that Judaism was FALSE, and some evidence it is true, but decided to make a leap of faith anyway. So why should I now not afford that same benefit of the doubt to Christianity and Islam? The reason I use those is that they are based on Sinai, Christianity doesn't deny it. — Gregory Magarshak, Feb 04 '14 at 18:22
@GregoryMagarshak Because there is no "jump". After you learn enough, and apply skepticism critically to all fields, you should eventually end up at Judaism. — avi, Feb 04 '14 at 18:39
@GregoryMagarshak Why doesn't the minority opinion in the Talmud matter? It matters a great deal! — avi, Feb 04 '14 at 18:42
@Danno Better yet, go Bhai, they claim all relgions are true. — avi, Feb 04 '14 at 18:43
@GregoryMagarshak It's a shame that this question was closed. It's very clear to me what you're asking. IMO it's a good question. I wish I could post an answer. I shall try to offer something in a comment instead. You say: "How would you explain to someone who does not a priori take for granted that the Torah was given on mount Sinai and that the Rabbis (continuing the Pharisaic tradition in the exile) are the one and only authoritative group of people to interpret what it says, that Judaism does not have a double standard with respect to every other religion?" — SAH, Oct 17 '17 at 21:35
@GregoryMagarshak I'd say that the short answer is: "We do [...] take for granted that the Torah was given on mount Sinai and that the Rabbis [...] are the one and only authoritative group of people to interpret what it says." That, in fact, is the whole answer to your question. If one doesn't agree with the basis for our religion (and that isn't an "a priori" basis!) then one will find little truth in it that could overcome a Pascal's wager. But the basis for our religion is our religion. And many of us don't "take [it] for granted," but believe it thoughtfully. — SAH, Oct 17 '17 at 21:42
More: https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/18653/how-can-we-be-sure-that-judaism-is-true-the-truth — SAH, Oct 17 '17 at 21:45
@GregoryMagarshak I might add two things to my comments above. 1) The stakes of not keeping Torah law are for us higher than those of a Pascal's wager. Whereas other religions cite a punishment of "eternal damnation," for us the punishment is essentially the crime--that one fails to do G-d's will. This is already abhorrent to us. No threat is necessary — SAH, Oct 17 '17 at 22:13
(Bonus #3: If you question the truth of #2 based on your original doubt of Jewish claims, I would advise you to continue studying Judaism in its own terms. Every corner of skepticism has by now been mined by our thousands of years of brilliant thinkers. They say interesting and illuminating things--none which proves the religion's claims beyond all doubt, but many of which provide enough basis for a decision about one's own life [which may be as simple as scrupulously following the Seven Noahide Laws]. Perhaps start with the resources here if you have not already [...+) — SAH, Oct 17 '17 at 22:34
(...) https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/10739/resources-for-learning-about-the-foundations-of-judaism — SAH, Oct 17 '17 at 22:34

avi · Answer 1 · 2014-02-04T17:32:17.293

5

I'm going to mostly ignore the examples you gave in your question, because I think they are a red herring. Just to address your examples quickly, none of what you described seems rational to me. What difference does eternal hell make if I don't believe in the existence of hell in the first place? My human experiences tell me that no matter how bad a situation is, I will eventually "get used to it." So really, this is a non starter.

In your Judaism vs skeptic paragraph, in that line of argument, I would side with the skeptic. It's a really bad response, and not at all convincing.

However, you would be correct to suggest that I am more willing to work with a contradiction over differences in science and Judaism than I am willing to work through a contradiction between another religion and Judaism.

My thoughts on this topic are basically the approaches of Rambam and the Kuzari.

When it comes to Christianity or Islam, both religions base their premise on the Torah. Any arguments they have, must be consistent with Judaism. Any arguments that they have which is inconsistent with Judaism, must be backed up with facts that are inarguable. (None exist).
When it comes to science, it's really a question of reality. There are many declarations of science which I do not believe to be true, because I do not think that those statements are actually backed up by the facts, or there are multiple theories which are not yet conclusive. However, the majority of science can be replicated, is observable, or leads directly to a usable technology which I can verify. This means that I know for a fact that some statement of science is true. (I have seen fruit flies mutate from generation to generation for example) I believe the Torah to be true, and I believe this scientific fact to be true. Because I believe both idea to be true, I must reconcile them.

If it ever happened, that Jesus appeared on earth, and I knew for a fact that it happened, then I would be required to reconcile the Torah with that fact. (It's not going to happen, btw) Because, reality can not contradict the Torah.

If however, I was not certain that the Torah was true, then I would be equally uncertain if Christianity was true, (since it's based on the Torah being true), and same with Islam. I would also have to investigate if Hinduism or Buddhism, or Shinto, or Animalism, or any of 1,000 different other religions were true. But rationally, the fact that a religion make some claim about eternity or the afterlife, will have absolutely zero impact on how I decide if that religion is true.

So to repeat myself. I know that most of science is true, and I know that some of science is false. I also know that Judaism is true. Those constructs, must then be reconciled.

If I don't know if Christianity or Judaism or Zoroastrianism is true, then I don't need to attempt to reconcile any of them together. There is no starting point of truth to even give me a desire of reconciliation.

When it comes to religion, I personally find that reconciling Jewish behavior with Jewish theory, is much harder to reconcile, than Science and Religion, or different religious texts and views. But the standard by which these judgements are the same. There is no double standard.

If two things are true, they must be reconciled, if only one is true and the other is unkown, then first you must prove the unknown before reconciliation is required.

And just to prove to you that threats of damnation are meaningless...

Pirkei Avot: "Do not be like slaves who serve the master in order to obtain a reward. Rather, be like slaves who serve the master not to receive a reward. And let the awe of Heaven be upon you." (1:3) "Be as careful in observance of a minor commandment as in a major commandment, because you don't know the respective rewards for the commandments." (2:1)

edited Feb 04 '14 at 17:32

answered Feb 04 '14 at 17:22

avi

18,985
1
52
81

Right, but the question is what would you say to someone who doesn't "know that Judaism is true". Of course, if you a priori come in saying that you know Torah is true, given on mount Sinai, or better yet that the Pharisees are right and Talmud really records the Oral Torah from Sinai, then the matter is settled. The question is, what if we don't assume this a priori? We have the Kuzari argument, etc. in favor of the Torah, and discrepancies with science. Suppose we decide to believe anyway that Sinai happened and miracles occur. How can you rule out Christianity without using double standard? – Gregory Magarshak Feb 04 '14 at 17:29
I addressed that starting with "If however, I was not certain that the Torah was true,". What part isn't clear? – avi Feb 04 '14 at 17:32
Why do you believe that Sinai happened? And why would that make you open to Christianity which nullifies Sinai? – avi Feb 04 '14 at 17:34
define "nullifies". Christianity affirms that Sinai happened. In fact, it does not deny anything in the TaNaKh. It simply claims that additional things happened, which the Rabbis in the Talmud interpret as Jesus stealing magic powers and which Christians interpret as a new revelation. I didn't say I believe Sinai happened... I have strong reasons to doubt that Judaism is true, but I am trying to learn more and see how it can be reconciled with science/history. My position is essentially along the lines of what I wrote here: http://magarshak.com/blog/?p=90 – Gregory Magarshak Feb 04 '14 at 17:44
What I meant with my first comment was, you said: "So to repeat myself. I know that most of science is true, and I know that some of science is false. I also know that Judaism is true. Those constructs, must then be reconciled. If I don't know if Christianity or Judaism or Zoroastrianism is true, then I don't need to attempt to reconcile any of them together. There is no starting point of truth to even give me a desire of reconciliation." So that explains why YOU reconcile science with Judaism but not Judaism with Christianity. But what if you were a Jew but didn't know Judaism was true? – Gregory Magarshak Feb 04 '14 at 17:46
What was not clear about this paragraph? "If however, I was not certain that the Torah was true, then I would be equally uncertain if Christianity was true, (since it's based on the Torah being true), and same with Islam. I would also have to investigate if Hinduism or Buddhism, or Shinto, or Animalism, or any of 1,000 different other religions were true. But rationally, the fact that a religion make some claim about eternity or the afterlife, will have absolutely zero impact on how I decide if that religion is true." – avi Feb 04 '14 at 17:52
You're saying that if you weren't certain that Torah was true, you'd have to investigate all the religions. OK, and then what? We have evidence that seems to disprove claims in Judaism, but it may be that these claims were allegorical and/or the world was changed so that scientists get a totally different picture despite using techniques that are reliable in tons of other areas. If NEVERTHELESS the person has some reason to think Judaism is true, and follow the halacha because of the warnings in Deuteronomy, why shouldn't they follow Christianity because of its warnings about the afterlife? – Gregory Magarshak Feb 04 '14 at 18:00
I would NEVER suggest that somebody follow halacha because of warnings in Devarim! What a silly idea! I would suggest that the Torah is true because Jews once again live in Israel. – avi Feb 04 '14 at 18:02
I will put it simply. There is evidence that SEEMS to disprove Judaism. Nevertheless, there is evidence for Judaism. If it was just an academic exercise we might say "well, we don't know." But Judaism compels us to ACT because over and over it stresses that the choice to follow halacha or not is actually a choice between life and death. Similarly, Christianity stresses that the choice to accept Jesus is actually a choice between heaven and hell in the afterlife. We don't know 100% what's true, but the reason many people FOLLOW the religion, is out of concern for the consequences if they don't. – Gregory Magarshak Feb 04 '14 at 18:03
" But Judaism compels us to ACT because over and over it stresses that the choice to follow halacha or not is actually a choice between life and death." Again, not a reason to decide if something is true or not. Once you believe the Torah is true, that is a reason to act, but it's not evidence to follow Torah. – avi Feb 04 '14 at 18:10
So if I don't believe the first 4 or 5 books of TaNaKh were given at Mount Sinai, you're saying I don't have to follow Shabbat or Kosher or anything else? Belief is such a tricky thing ... I have really no idea 100% one way or the other. I think like this: it MIGHT be true. IF it is true, it would really suck personally for me if I did not follow at least the most major commandments. So I follow them just in case it's true. Maybe later I will realize it's true, and follow them all. Maybe I won't. Why isn't "just in case" a reason to do something? It is a reason for all kinds of things in life. – Gregory Magarshak Feb 04 '14 at 18:13

score 2 · Answer 2 · answered Feb 04 '14 at 17:10

2

The big difference between Judaism and other religions is that Judaism holds that millions of people saw God give the Torah at Mount Sinai. No other religion in the world claims such a thing.

This matters because it's one thing for one person to announce that they had a vision or dream or prophecy, and then persuade lots of other people (using words or swords) to believe him. On the other hand, you can't convince millions of people that millions of their ancestors saw something. Hence, a tradition based on that many witnesses is far superior and more credible than a tradition based on one.

Therefore, when Jews say that Christianity or Islam is wrong because XYZ doesn't make sense, I don't think that they're trying to make a watertight argument against those religions; they're just making a point.

answered Feb 04 '14 at 17:10

Ypnypn

8,283
1
17
44

So are you saying that since the historical basis for Jewish belief is more reliable, in your opinion, due to the nature of the claims about how it got started, therefore it isnt possible Christianity can be right? After all, if the skeptics are wrong and Sinai in fact happened, Christianity can STILL be right. They have historical proofs in their favor too, which are very hard to address comfortably. Take a look: http://christianity.about.com/od/easter/a/7-Proofs-Of-The-Resurrection.htm After all, if a skeptic turned out to be wrong about Judaism, they should be careful to be openminded now. – Gregory Magarshak Feb 04 '14 at 17:19
@GregoryMagarshak that link is easy to address comfortably. See.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lost_Tomb_of_Jesus – avi Feb 04 '14 at 17:36
How is that different than addressing the Kuzari comfortably like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_Unearthed – Gregory Magarshak Feb 04 '14 at 17:40
The Christian bible claims that the tomb was empty and there was no body. Archaeologists found a tomb with a body which is labeled as being Jesus.
Your link to the bible_unearthed isn't so straight forward. Recent archeological finds show that bible unearthed is mistaken on quite a few points.
– avi Feb 04 '14 at 17:47
http://www.denverseminary.edu/article/the-bible-unearthed/ – avi Feb 04 '14 at 17:50
I downvoted this answer because Gregory (the OP) discounted this argument in one of the questions linked to this one. – Clint Eastwood Feb 04 '14 at 19:33
If the Bible Unearthed is mistaken on quite a few points, why isn't it relevant that the "tomb with a body which is labeled as being Jesus" has major problems also? I doubt you'll find lots of Christians coming out saying this was the real Jesus. – Gregory Magarshak Jul 12 '15 at 04:09

score -1 · Answer 3 · answered Feb 04 '14 at 16:59

-1

All of your examples of inconsistencies are reasons why no sane person should switch religions based on the integrity of the narrative.

A priori sticking to the Talmud is the rational option for Jews that started out as Jews. Since both Christianity and Judaism have apparent narrative flaws to switch one lame horse for the other would not be helpful from an objective truth seeking perspective.

Even Atheism is flawed in this way because one ultimately has to get around how either something came from nothing or something existed without a precursor. Both of these phenomena are currently considered to be supernatural.

Judaism is thus not less true than its leading competitors but the Jew is expected to stick with it not based solely on its truth value, but also because it is the lore of our tribe and community. From my understanding, the big deal about apostasy is not so much the incorrectness of the new set of tenets, but the turning away from the tribe.

answered Feb 04 '14 at 16:59

Clint Eastwood

8,303
17
44

I see what you're saying, but wouldn't each individual have to balance the benefit of being part of the tribe and its traditions, versus eternal damnation and hell? It would be nice if one of the religions was demonstrably true, but given that as you say each one has its problems, what would you say to someone who is more concerned about their afterlife than how many lechaims they get to do with their tribe? – Gregory Magarshak Feb 04 '14 at 17:13
the "eternal damnation and hell" is only a valid fear once one has already adopted the other theology. If being part of the tribe and its traditions includes its beliefs, the threat of hell and damnation leveled against non-adherents of other religions BY those other religions is empty. – rosends Feb 04 '14 at 17:18
I don't understand your point, can you clarify it in some other way? How is a threat empty just because it is based on a belief system that may or may not be true? If there is a chance it is true, then Pascal's wager says you should hedge your bets if you're being rational. And if it turns out that miracles did in fact happen, then at that point we humans shouldn't be so arrogant as to know what we could rule out both naturally and theologically. In short, once you open the door to miracles, you have to be more openminded, and can't know for certain if someone's belief system is true or not. – Gregory Magarshak Feb 04 '14 at 17:24
@GregoryMagarshak Opening the door to miracles, doesn't require you to do anything other than be open to miracles. – avi Feb 04 '14 at 17:29
Let me put it this way - if we find out that humans really lived hundreds of years, nearly all life on earth was killed 4k years ago, 3 million people ran away from an army of 50k egyptians, all nations heard and yet there is no additional record of this (despite them recording other stuff, etc.) and if Torah claims God changed his mind but also says he doesn't change his mind, how can I rule out that God didn't also change his mind and decide to save everyone through Jesus on the cross? Or anything else? If I am open to miracles and anything can be reconciled with anything using apologetics? – Gregory Magarshak Feb 04 '14 at 17:34
btw I don't mean the above to sound in any way combative - I am a Jew - I just don't understand how someone who STARTS from the point of view of a skeptic can rule out Christianity, once he accepts that things he thought (that nothing supernatural ever happened) were in fact wrong, how does he know that things the Jews think (that the Messiah can't also atone for your sins etc.) are never going to be wrong? – Gregory Magarshak Feb 04 '14 at 17:37
1

Each claim and point of question has to be evaluated on it's own terms. You can't make illogical leaps of the kind saying, If I was wrong about my teacher in 1st grade being crazy, then I must also be wrong about the guy in the insane asylum being crazy. – avi Feb 04 '14 at 17:56
Pascal's wager could be used to then require one believe in an infinite number of different things, even ones that contradict others so that's a non-starter. But the threat of damnation is useless if I don't believe in the authority of the theology which threatens the damnation. And by the time I believe in it, I am not worried about the threat because I believe. – rosends Feb 04 '14 at 18:14
Greg's first comment: Yes. The person would have to balance that. It could be impossible to be guaranteed to pick the true one (if there was indeed a true one) One could try to line all the religions up and pick the one that has the least internal and external flaws. One could also make up his own belief system. – Clint Eastwood Feb 04 '14 at 19:21

Does Judaism have a double standard?

3 Answers3