Here's a paper I just wrote for my "Judaism, Christianity, and Islam" class.
"Are They Lying to Me, Mommy?"
In obtaining source material for this paper, the author has taken the liberty of using not one, but two articles on an online weblog titled "The Rebel Jew." Citation information, including links to the articles, can be found in the bibliography. The author has chosen two articles because she feels that the two are in a way one -- and, although this composition may rely more heavily on one or the other, the main topic of it is raised and discussed in both. That which has captured the author's attention in these two posts is the radical (or simply "blacklisted"?) idea that the Establishment can be wrong. In this paper, the discussion that these two articles bring up will be given a platform in its relation to Judaism, as well as its relation to education and the concept of "tolerance" in today's society.
In his discourse "Dangers of the Infallibility Doctrine," the RebelJew warns that many in modern Judaism are being led astray by the idea that they ought not question what the great sages of old have declared -- they are, after all, the great sages. He states that when science or facts or evidence lead to some conclusion which would seem (to an outside observer) to be "absurd," those pursuing the line of reasoning ought to reexamine the methods and paths which led to that conclusion. The RebelJew, as an illustration of this, relates that according to the Mishnaic worldview, the "female seed" is merely coagulated blood in the womb, and so all red parts of humans come from the mother, while the white parts come from the father. We know now, from science, that this is not true, no matter which way one attempts to spin it or what cloak one would place around it to obfuscate its obvious intended meaning -- nor ought one attempt to do so. The RebelJew makes the claim that to do so is to cheapen Truth itself, and states, "we do no service by defending Torah, its Sages, or its history in this way." This is true, and an excellent point: if Torah needs a man or a woman to defend it, does it not lose integrity thereby? Can your belief system stand on its own against the (informed, accurate) objections others would bring against it? If not, then, as the RebelJew states so well, "are there facts that you fear?"
If one's worldview is not sufficient to cover and account for every fact, every subtlety and logical continuation which arises from it, it is an insufficient worldview -- and it is wrong. If a man holds evolution and survival of the fittest as his core, identity-shaping beliefs, then you ought never see him taking part in any organization designed to save the whales, the tigers, or the babies. He should support alcoholism, suicide, uninhibited drug use, euthanasia, wars, racism, slavery, and murder; all of these are, in his system of beliefs, nature's way of ensuring that evolution continues to progress. He would not want, by his actions, to harm the future of his children (of which he should have many) by altering the course of nature or interfering with evolution's omniscient plan. If a man claims these beliefs but does not carry them to their logical conclusion, he is simply an actor: he has adopted a belief system, but he has not interrogated it and probed the deepest depths of its implications. This the RebelJew addresses in his discourse on the Doctrine of Infallibility which has crept so quietly into Judaism.
Judaism was not, originally, a religion of blind acceptance. Its adherents from the beginning have been taught to think for themselves; to evaluate everything they are told against their central bastion of all truth, the Torah. In Deuteronomy chapter 13, God is recorded as speaking to the people of Israel and saying that even if someone
comes to them with "signs and wonders," that alone does not give the person credibility -- their speech must be evaluated on its own, apart from any signs that they may attempt to use. Judaism from the beginning has been, to quote Bethamie Horowitz, "a tradition of questioning tradition." For RebelJew to state in his post that Judaism has acquired a "Doctrine of Infallibility" is to make a dire claim indeed; the clear implications of this allegation are that Judaism has lost its core, foundational principles, and has replaced them with a dogma which is above questioning -- a "truth" which must be true even if proven false. Children question things naturally, and, traditionally at least, Jewish children even moreso (see Horowitz). Has this changed? And is it, as RebelJew claims, something which must be changed immediately?
There is an obvious appeal to a doctrine which discourages or simply does not allow room for questioning of the powers that be. RebelJew discusses it in his article "School Science and Creationism." It springs from a fear -- a fear or even a knowledge that one's belief system is not complete, does not cover all the contingencies, implications and logical conclusions -- a fear that someone will discover some inconsistency, and then the holder of those beliefs will be left with the decision RebelJew describes in "Dangers of the Infallibility Doctrine"; namely, he may either "stand strongly against a scoffing world and proclaim that [his] facts are correct and the rest of the world is off its rocker," or he may, if he is wise, decide that perhaps his system of beliefs is in need of a critical evaluation. If he performs a critical and logical reexamination of his beliefs, however, he stands to lose face -- he must stand before the world and declare to them that he was wrong. Too often, men and women in modern society would rather live their lives with a false belief system, slaying their conscience day by day, than reevaluate their beliefs and thereby take the chance that their original conclusion was wrong.
In recent years, it has been decided by those in authority that no truth should be taught in institutes of higher education except in cases where it cannot possibly be avoided, such as physics or calculus. It has come to be that each person, upon admission to a university, has unknowingly been entered into a system designed to teach the individual the views of the professor or teaching assistant in a way that gives said individual a sense that the view she acquires is "her own." Hence, the strong and overt emphasis on discussion and opinions which has arisen in education in the past few years. These new foci, however, present a problem to the Establishment. RebelJew expresses this perfectly when he writes, "We must resist the urge to teach dogmatically. Let them hear it all, absorb it all, and understand what is observed, what is extrapolated and what the difference is... Teach them to respect knowledge and reason." He goes on to state, "Let's resist the urge to obfuscate facts to sustain dogma. If we do not trust them to form opinions, they will grow up to suspect yours. We may unwittingly teach them that there are facts that we fear. Are there facts that you fear?"
The most dangerous sort of education is the sort in which one or more viewpoints are restricted while those in authority loudly proclaim diversity and tolerance of all views. Every person has a system of core beliefs -- an identifying set of values which define who he is and every action he takes. Athiests, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Agnostics, and all other individuals, regardless of the label which is chosen for them. You cannot take away or nullify those beliefs by telling the person to "be neutral" -- it is impossible for a person to simply cast off his or her identity to teach (or take) a class; it merely sets up from the beginning a bias which cannot be answered because it is "not there" in the first place. Do not purport to give students an "unbiased" professor -- the only truly unbiased person is a dead one, and a corpse does not do much teaching except for medical students. Rather, give the students all the information: tell them what you fear, and then ask yourself why you fear it.
It has been shown through this paper that blindly following a convincing figure or charismatic face, instead of actively questioning and evaluating everything said, is very dangerous and should be discouraged by all lovers of Truth. Among the specific issues discussed were the problem of this attitude which faces children of Judaism, both in their traditional and educational lives. RebelJew addresses this problem which springs from a misconception of the individual, one which degrades each individual into someone incapable of logic or reason, unable to think for himself, unable to reason logically and reach a logical conclusion. It is often fear, says RebelJew, which prompts this dogmatic affectation of "belief," and it is openness, honesty, and encouragement of critical thinking which will confront and eradicate that fear.
Bibliography:
RebelJew. "Dangers of Infallibility Doctrine." Thoughts on Judaism. 2005. 11 February, 2009.
.
RebelJew. "School Science and Creationism." Thoughts on Judaism. 2005. 11 February, 2009. .
Horowitz, Bethamie. "A Tradition of Questioning Tradition." Forward Association. 2005. 11 February, 2009. .Labels: college, deception, establishment, lies, religion, university
