Say What?

In the beginning of Parshat Vayigash, Joseph reveals himself to his brothers.  Upon revealing himself, Joseph gives a speech, mostly about the prospect of his father and brothers joining him in Egypt.  After Joseph's speech, the Torah says "and his brothers spoke with him."  However, the Torah does not tell us what Joseph's brothers said.  If the content of the brothers' comments is not important to record in the Torah, what is the significance of the fact that they spoke to him?

One possibility is that this verse is a reference to a verse in the beginning of Parshat Vayigash.  When Joseph tells his brothers about his dreams of family domination, the brothers get so mad that "they were not able to speak to him peacefully."  Thus, the verse in Parshat Vayigash may be coming to tell us that now, for the first time since Joseph's dreams, the brothers were able to speak to him.  It is a closing paranthesis, as it were, of a period of strife between the brothers.

Permission to Believe

Reason is based on faith.

Think about math and science.  Math is kind of like a game played with certain axioms.  To believe that the claims of math (such as, 7 + 5 = 12) are true means to believe that the axioms are valid.  They are intuitive to us, convincing to us, and we believe them -- essentially, we have faith in them.  Science is based on the scientific method, which is really another axiom in which we trust.  (Technically speaking, positivistic science owes a large debt to the principle of proof by contradiction, which is a logical axiom, and is, of course, just another item of faith.)   To repeat my favorite Terry Eagleton quote: reason does not go all the way down.

Think about David Hume's classic example: do you believe that it is safer to go out the door than to go out the window (he was speaking, of course, of a higher-story window.)  I work on the 26th floor (at least, I believe that I do).  Do you think that it's safer for me to take the elevator down rather than squeezing through the cracks in one of the windows (God forbid)?

That belief is based on some form of inductive reasoning, inductive reasoning which has no justification outside of itself -- which is ultimately an article of faith.

What is the difference between faith in inductive reasoning, faith in arithmetic, and faith in God?  What do you think, Dear Readers?  From a theoretical standpoint, I don't think there is much difference.

Is it possible that some article of faith was actually implanted by a Cartesian demon, such as genes or "memes"?  Sure.  When I have faith, I realize that my faith could have been implanted by a Cartesian demon, but I believe that it was not; I believe that it is a true intuition.  Is there any "reason" to believe that it is a true intuition rather than a demonic implant?  Not really; faith has no external justification.  However, just as important, there is no coherent reason *not* to have faith in any article of intuition.

(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_epistemology for a similar argument.)

The Root of Most Evil

I was listening to Richard Dawkins this morning, and he made the following argument:

Faith is not grounded in evidence.
Therefore, it is impossible to challenge the beliefs of a Man of Faith.
Religion is based on faith.
Some peoples' religion tells them to behead Dutch filmmakers.
Therefore, if a religious person believes that he must behead a Dutch filmmaker, there is no way to dissuade him.
Therefore, religion is a license to immorality.
Therefore, religion is the root of most evil.

What's wrong with this picture?

What's wrong with this picture is that morality is not grounded in evidence either.  If your only tool of persuasion is evidence, there is no way you will convince anyone not to behead Dutch filmmakers.  No evidence can possibly demonstrate to someone that he should not behead a Dutch filmmaker.

Atheists often claim that religion is a license to immorality.  On the other hand, believers often claim that atheism is a license to immorality, or that religion/God is the only possible basis for morality.

(Rabbi Lawrence Kelemen's book Permission to Believe goes so far as to argue that the "fact" of morality is evidence of the existence of God.)

In theory, both are wrong; morality and religion are orthogonal in principle.  I may expand on this in a later post.

In practice, I would love to see statistics that study the relationship between religion and morality in the real world.  Such a study would, of course, be limited by the moral standard it chooses to apply.

Deep Thought of the Day: the belief that all beliefs must be grounded in evidence is self-contradictory, because there is not (and could not possibly be) any evidence that supports the belief "all beliefs must be grounded in evidence".

Why Is This Night Different From All Other Nights?

"Netilat Yadayim" is a ritualization of hand washing practiced in traditional Judaism. In the days of the Holy Temple, we Jews used to perform the netilat yadayim ritual before eating vegetables, fruits, grains, or their derivatives, unless the food had never come into contact with moisture. Since the destruction of the Temple around 70 AD, we only do netilat yadayim before eating bread. Except at the Passover seder, that is. On Passover, we eat a vegetable before the meal (this vegetable, called "karpas", must be dipped in salt water), and we perform the netilat yadayim ritual in preperation for eating the vegetable.

Why is this night different from all other nights?

Why do we do netilat yadayim in preparation for a vegetable? For that matter, why do we eat this vegetable before the meal, and why do we dip it in salt water?

My own personal answer will appear in a later post. Meanwhile, Dear Reader, please comment with your answer.