By Anonymous
(Slightly edited for grammar and clarity)
CHAPTER 1
THE "IRRATIONALITY" OF ATHEISM
Rabbi Keleman begins his book with why he believes atheism is irrational.
He writes that there are three approaches to belief in god:
One can believe in God (theist).
One can be unsure if God exists (agnostic).
One can know he doesn't exist (atheist).
Of which only the first two options he believes are rationally defensible.
As he will continue to do throughout this book it's a bit of a theme for Kelemans' original premise to be wrong.
Agnosticism by itself is not a belief claim, rather it is a claim of knowledge/measure of confidence in a claim (for example one can be unsure if a god exists (agnostic) yet still believe in a god(theist)).
Therefore there are really only two practical approaches to a god belief:
One can hold a god belief (theist).
One can not hold a god belief (atheist).
To these approaches, a person can add a number of qualifiers showing their state of knowledge/measure of confidence to/in said approach.
Gnostic, knows it is so.
Agnostic, unsure if it is so.
This, in my opinion, is the clearest way to define the possible approaches to a god belief. Ignoring semantics, Kelemans' proposition is that gnostic atheism is irrational while agnostic atheism and (gnostic) theism are rational.
He writes that there are two rational ways to be a (gnostic) theist:
God introduces himself to you.
Know of God through indirect evidence from phenomena that are only explained by a god [An example Keleman brings of knowing something through indirect evidence is the knowledge of the existence of historical figures such as Abraham Lincoln. Excuse the tangent but it's arguable if the huge amount of contemporary writing about Abraham Lincoln, his writings, portraits and photos of him, his clothes, home and tomb, his descendants, etc, are considered indirect evidence except in the broadest use of the term. Regardless, the quality and amount of evidence and likelihood of the claim are probably more important than the type of evidence].
The issues with these "rational" ways are obvious.
Option 1:
For the first way, how would you know this was a god and how would you know it's not a hallucination (people with schizophrenia have discussions with angels, demons, cthulhu, etc, and while on drug trips people can become convinced that they've uncovered a deep truth). Keleman even somewhat acknowledges this and writes that we'd be justified in being skeptical of such a claim but to the person receiving the revelation it is a rational way to god, but he doesn't explain why the person shouldn't be just as skeptical of their experience.
Option 2:
For the second way, firstly this is quite literally the god of the gaps fallacy/absence of an explanation is not positive proof for anything, especially if the claim is not corroborated by anything else and is in fact contradicted by known facts (as an aside, by definition an explanation is to show the mechanism of a phenomenon. Therefore Goddidit is not an explanation for a phenomenon, it's a cop-out). Secondly, this is no more evidence for a theistic God than it is for a deistic god, Polytheism, or the Magical Pixies.
After explaining why he believes (gnostic) theism and agnosticism are rational, Keleman writes that gnostic atheism is irrational since in order to declare that a god doesn't exist, or anything for that matter, one would need to have complete knowledge of everything in the universe.
This is completely irrelevant as most gnostic atheists are against a specific god claim, which can be rationally shown not to exist in a number of ways:
Logical inconsistencies in the god claim (evidential problem of Evil in a tri-Omni God)
Inherent impossibilities in the god claim (disembodied mind, interacts with the universe while being outside the universe, etc.)
The only source for the god claim being manmade mythology.
Lack of evidence for actions attributed to the god claim.
But even gnostic atheism against the idea of Gods can be rationally defended (unless you reduce God to a vapid form of deism), since there is no reason to suppose that such a thing exists, how it could exist nor is there any evidence that it exists.
Therefore while a gnostic atheist would acknowledge the difficulty of proving a negative, the likelihood of a god existing is low, due to the lack of evidence and thousands of competing claims, and it is as rational to say it doesn't exist as it is to say the Tyrannosaurus Rex is extinct or that djinns don't exist.
Hitchen's Razor (that which is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence) could also be used to disprove the idea of god.
Keleman then finishes off the chapter with why rational people claim to be atheists:
Option 1: They don't understand the difference between atheism and agnosticism.
This is ironic seeing as he doesn't know the difference.
Option 2: Atheists because of rebellion or emotional reasons.
When theists say they believe because they can "feel the Holy Spirit in their heart", they consider it perfectly reasonable. But as soon as an atheist who may have been abused or stifled by a religion and suffered in other ways, uses this to justify their lack of belief. Suddenly it's not reasonable and they just never tried hard enough to find god.
Option 3: People are familiar with the best argument against God, the problem of evil, but unfamiliar with arguments for God.
I disagree that the Problem of Evil is the best argument against god, all it does is disprove an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnibenevolent God, it does not disprove an unknowing, powerless, malicious god. In my opinion the single best argument against God is the lack of evidence for it.
It is interesting to note that Kelemans' conclusion is the typical theist caricature that atheists are either ignoramus hedonists or rebellious teens.
CHAPTER 2
THE ARGUMENT FROM MORALITY
Chapter 2 is Kelemans' version of the argument from morality.
He writes that many people believe in universal and objective ethics, such as the idea that murder is always wrong (he defines murder as a human killing guiltless and non-threatening humans), and if so the question is, who or what made it wrong.
Once again Kelemans' original premise of objective morality can be challenged. He doesn't even attempt to show morality is objective, which should be the first step, but instead simply assumes that since people believe it is objective, it is objective.
Many theists think that the commonalities of morality show there is an objective morality. The only way for this argument to even begin is to reduce the huge field of ethics we call morality to something as basic as murder while ignoring the huge differences between cultures on polygamy, animal cruelty, sexuality, slavery, etc, and assume that this is universal and objective.
But not even murder is considered by many people to be universally and objectively wrong. If a Jew killed an Amalekite, he wouldn't consider it murder, but any other person would. Rather it seems that while the value that murder is wrong may be universal (as is to be expected from social animals), its' definition isn't objective and is dependent on cultural and social norms.
Keleman acknowledges this view of morality at the end of the chapter (and in his third explanation), but strawmans this view and calls it a virtually aesthetic choice. When in fact it is impersonal and dependent on societal/cultural norms.
Regardless, Kelemans' view is that murder is universally and objectively wrong. He offers five natural explanations for this and dismisses them:
Reason 1: Because of reason/abstract logic.
But since logic is to do what's most effective for our goal, this assumes that the goal is not to murder, and for some, murder may be the best way to their goal. Nor can the goal be survival as some suggest, since that's not everyone's goal (e.g kamikaze pilots). And even for those to whom it is, survival may best be achieved by murder.
It is important to note that although the goals/values may be subjective this can still lead to objective moral standards.
While the above may be an objection to a moral system based on personal values/goals, it is not an objection to moral systems based on/applied to societal values/goals, like Utilitarianism, Deontology, etc.
Reason 2: Because someone decided.
But why should one person set the moral standard, what makes them the moral authority, and what is murders' status before this person was born and after this person dies.
Keleman seemingly forgets about these objections for later when he presents god as a moral authority.
Reason 3: Our society decided.
But what makes Western society a moral authority over (and I quote) "certain Eastern and African civilizations that condone infanticide, cannibalism, and other murderous behaviors".
If their justification for murderous behavior is faulty (superstition, unprovable religious reasons, racism, etc), then a Western morality based on logic (Utilitarianism, Deontology, etc) is infinitely more justified.
Another point is that basic morality, such as murder is wrong, is essential for the functioning of any society and a prerequisite for a group to form, therefore any member of the group must subscribe to that tenet, or otherwise the group wouldn't survive. Therefore no society decided that murder is wrong, it's necessary for it to be wrong.
Reason 4: A federation of humanity decided.
But what gives them the authority and why should it be binding for all time. Besides in the past during certain times of history murder was sanctioned, like Hitler during WW2, nor did the rest of the world care so long as it wasn't happening to them.
Reason 5: Because it's against nature/unnatural.
When was this principle established? Since nature is always changing, why should this be binding? Today's natural world is different from the natural world one thousand years ago.
In fact, in nature most living things do murder, lions survive by eating deer, and other lions too, when there are no deer.
He seems to think against nature means all living beings agreed murder is wrong. When in fact an explanation of morality based on evolutionary psychology would also be natural. For social animals, some traits would be advantageous for survival and reproduction, traits like empathy, compassion, and a feeling that murder is wrong, and such traits are found in many primates (of course this only explains why it's so hardwired into people that murder is wrong). But since Keleman rejects evolution , it's not surprising that he didn't even consider this.
Keleman also seems to redefine murder here. Whereas before he defined it as humans killing guiltless, non-threatening humans, here he considers a lion killing a deer or an enemy murder [as an aside, lions don't really eat or attack other lions, especially not from their pride]. I doubt he would consider humans killing guiltless non-threatening animals murder or a human defending himself and his family a murderer, so why would a lion killing a deer or an enemy be murder.
Another explanation for a universal and objective morality that Keleman doesn't consider, is that it is an abstract truth, similar to mathematical Platonism.
Keleman now presents a sixth "explanation".
Reason 6: The Supernatural, a person who believes in eternal, universal ethics must admit the existence of a supernatural moral arbiter, a god.
He doesn't even consider that many of his previous objections are just as valid for this explanation.
If a god is the source of moral standards, how are they communicated to us?
If it's from intuition, why choose Western intuition?
If it's from a holy book (e.g. the Bible), I doubt anyone could read it objectively and call it a moral guide.
Even if these morals are from a god, why would we have to listen to him?
Because it's moral? This assumes we can independently verify morality.
Because it said so? Why should we listen to it?
Which god is this? There are wildly differing morals between Tenochtitlan, Zeus, Brahma, Yahweh, etc.
Therefore a god can't be the source of moral standards either.
Whether morality is universal and objective, or not, is still highly debated in the philosophy of meta-ethics. And while there are many competing systems and explanations, almost none of them assume or need a god as a moral arbiter.
Improvements: To improve this argument I think you must first prove there is an objective and universal morality and show what it is. But a god, we're not sure even exists, still wouldn't be a satisfactory answer for the above reasons.
CHAPTER 3
THE COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Chapter three is Kelemans' basic version of the Cosmological argument. It is mostly filled with historical fluff sourced from Robert Jastrows' book, God and the astronomers.
I'm not sure how historically accurate it is, but judging from the misrepresentation that Einstein rejected an expanding universe because of its theological implications and never fully accepted it [he rejected it because he hated singularities and because he had his own explanation, the cosmological constant. But as soon as he was shown unambiguous evidence that the universe was expanding, he accepted it and even worked out two models for an expanding universe. Reportedly, later in his life he even called the Constant his biggest blunder.], I don't think it's very accurate so I'm going to ignore the fluff and focus on the actual argument.
Keleman writes that there are three models for the Universe:
A static universe.
A universe that continually expands and contracts(Big Bang to Big Crunch).
An expanding universe (Big Bang).
He writes that the first and second models have been disproven by science [the second model has seen somewhat of a resurgence recently], this only leaves the third model (Big Bang) which Keleman believes is proof of creation for the following reasons:
Why would a dot containing all matter and energy-that sit quietly for eternity-explode? The law of inertia [Newton's first law] insists that objects at rest remain at rest. Since all matter and energy were inside this dot, there could be nothing outside the dot to start the initial explosion.
Even if the dot was never stable and it popped into existence and immediately exploded. How could anything pop into existence ex-nihilo? The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy dictates that the total matter and energy of the universe can't increase or decrease.
Keleman seems to misunderstand Big Bang theory and basic physics.
Big Bang theory is not an explanation for the origin of the universe. Rather, the Big Bang theory is that approximately 13.8 billion years ago the universe was much smaller, denser, and hotter (not a "dot" or singularity), a condition in which our current model of physics breaks down(isn't accurate for these conditions).
We don't know what there was before the Big Bang (there's speculation and some hypotheses, but nothing definite), or even if there was a before, since the Big Bang was the expansion and beginning of spacetime.
Therefore it is possible that asking what caused the Big Bang isn't even a reasonable question since cause and effect require time to function and are primarily based on the human experience.
Or it is possible that the Big Bang caused itself, an evolution/expansion (and cooling) of the previous state.
Or that it was caused by quantum fluctuations.
This "dot"/singularity didn't sit quietly for all eternity, there is no concept of time before the Big Bang.
It didn't pop into existence ex-nihilo, it's possible that the sum energy of the universe is eternal.
[There are some models of Big Bang theory that don't lead to a "dot"/singularity.]
Kelemans' objections from Newton's First Law and the Law of Conservation of Energy are non-starters. Newtonian mechanics breakdown (isn't accurate in these conditions) long before the conditions present during the Big Bang. As for the general Law of Conservation of Energy, it is derived from time translational symmetry (the laws of physics are constant) and Noethers' theorem, but it is theoretically possible for there to be systems that do not have time translational symmetry (as evidenced by time crystals) and therefore the first law wouldn't apply to them. Therefore the First Law may not apply to the beginning of our universe which may not have been subject to time translational symmetry
If the energy of the universe was eternal and the Big Bang was simply an expansion (and cooling) of a previous state, then even if the Law of Conservation of Energy was applicable to the beginning of our universe, the Big Bang wouldn't be in violation of it.
Therefore at best, this argument is the God of the gaps fallacy.
Improvements: To improve this argument you could say since the universe began to solve the problem of infinite regress there must have been an uncaused cause that is infinite and caused it.
Of course, we must question if the universe did begin to exist. Even if it did, it must be demonstrated that infinite regress is impossible. If demonstrated, it must be demonstrated that the uncaused cause is needed, it is possible that since causation is primarily based on human conceptions of time and cause and effect the universe could have caused itself. Even if the uncaused cause is necessary, it must be shown that it has the properties commonly attributed to a god (sentient, has power over nature, existence outside of spacetime, etc.) and demonstrate that some are even possible, otherwise it could just have been a cause.
CHAPTER 4
THE ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN
Chapter four is the argument from design. Kelemans' primary source is biochemist (Keleman presents him as a microbiologist) Michael Dentons' book, Evolution: a Theory in Crisis.
This book is notorious for being full of errors, strawmanning, and quote mining. Many of its' claims were even contradicted by Denton in his later books.
As such this chapter is full of the above issues and since I'd rather focus on his arguments, I'll address the general argument and Kelemans' attempt to refute Evolution,[ after which I'll address some of the more egregious examples of quote mining.]
Keleman writes that there are 2 primary areas of complexity:
Area 1: Life (specifically human DNA).
There are around 4 pages about the wonders of DNA, but obviously none of its' shortcomings (almost 50% pseudo-genes, copying errors, etc). Which if I'm being cynical is written to overwhelm the reader into thinking this must be designed.
Area 2: The precisely balanced [he implies that it's for life] laws of physics and chemistry.
Keleman doesn't present any other explanation for this other than Goddidit and doesn't really address it all too much. Nevertheless, it's an important point to address.
A common problem with both points is that this is an argument from ignorance and an argument from incredulity. In other words, rather than engaging in positive apologetics and showing why or how god is necessary and explanatory, Keleman merely presents the negative apologetics of we don't know how this could happen therefore god and assumes that we have perfect knowledge of everything.
Area 1: The Complexity of Life
Keleman writes that there are two ways to explain the universe, Natural and Supernatural. The Natural explanations fall into two categories:
The existence of ordering forces.
Random chance produced order.
He writes that the first type (ordering forces) has never been shown to exist and is in fact contradicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states (I quote) "that the total order of the universe constantly decays". While there is some evidence that the second type (randomness produces order) exists, given enough time. One such example is Evolution.
Once again Keleman displays his complete lack of understanding regarding any opposing explanation.
There are many "ordering" (this is such a vague term, would Keleman consider a scrambled egg less orderly than tangled earphones. A better word would be directing or deterministic) forces that exist. Such as the autocatalytic properties of phospholipids, water freezes into ice crystals, Gravity (gathers dust and gas clouds), Natural Selection, etc.
None of the above is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which, unlike theist misconceptions, actually is that in a closed system, the entropy will constantly increase.
Nor is Evolution a random force that produces order. Evolution (from common descent) by Natural Selection is that random mutations will be sifted by the deterministic force of Natural Selection (whatever is beneficial for, or at least doesn't hinder, reproduction) on the population level.
Keleman writes that Neo-Darwinism is the theory that in a primordial soup, non-life randomly combined into viable life [he defines bacteria as life], which reproduced abundantly, occasionally producing mutants. These mutants also reproduced and generated more sophisticated mutants, which yielded the range of living creatures alive today.
Keleman here conflates the theories of Abiogenesis and Evolution and calls it "Neo-Darwinism" (which is the theory that the variation sifted by Natural Selection is driven by Genetic mutation). [Abiogenesis is not fully understood yet but there are many different hypotheses and it might not have been a single process,] regardless, even if Abiogenesis was disproved, Evolution would be, and is a demonstrable fact.
He also misrepresents Evolution by writing it's only based on mutations and completely ignoring any form of selection. And misrepresents Abiogenesis by writing that non-life becomes a bacterium.
In another example of Kelemans' fundamental lack of understanding of what evolution is, he later writes concerning the speciation of peppered Moths that a moth never became blue or green and always remained a moth.
Keleman writes that when Darwin first proposed Evolution there was no evidence, nor is there any now.
This is completely wrong. Darwin first considered Evolution by Natural Selection from his observations of finches and other animals in the Galapagos Islands. He included evidence from many different sources in his books (artificial selection, embryology, homology, etc).
Today, the evidence for Evolution is impossible to dismiss. From body homology to the fossil record, to genetics (shared ERVs and shared pseudo-genes, to mention just two) it all converges to the fact of common descent (and in the same taxonomic order) for all life on Earth. So much so that Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology (see below).
Keleman writes that there are two lines of missing evidence for [Abiogenesis and] Evolution:
Issue 1: There is no evidence that a primordial soup ever existed.
This is wrong. There's ample evidence for a primordial sea (erosion on ancient sand grains) and there are experiments that show that in such conditions organic compounds can spontaneously form near deep-sea thermal vents and on certain types of clay.
Nor does every theory of Abiogenesis require a primordial soup.
Issue 2: Every species would require an almost identical parent species. But this isn't seen in the fossil record, rather we see species appear suddenly.
Due to the many conditions required to form fossils (the body must be undisturbed, rapid burial, etc.), fossilization is the exception, not the rule (unless there was a global flood which is almost the perfect conditions for fossilization, and we should have billions of fossils of all "types").
Despite this, there are some almost complete fossil lineages leading to whales, horses, birds, and humans. Many "transitional species" have also been found (Wikipedia has a great entry for this, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils).
Regarding the sudden appearance of species, Keleman is very vague and doesn't mention any examples. But when biologists refer to the time they are generally going by the Geological time frame, in which 10 million years is basically a blink, thus while it may be geologically sudden it is after a process of millions of years. The relative rarity of fossilization is also a contributing factor. As is the evolutionary theory of punctuated equilibrium.
Regardless, even without the fossil, the evidence for evolution from a common descent just from genetics is unambiguous (from Rational Wiki, because they've written it in a really clear way and I'm lazy):
1 - Endogenous Retrovirus
Endogenous Retrovirus is when a retrovirus that infected the host, and by mutation deactivated, is absorbed into the host cell and has its DNA inserted into the hosts' genome. These retroviruses are sometimes inserted into germline cells (i.e a sperm or egg cell) and will then be passed onto any offspring generated from this cell.
ERVs are usually species-specific, inserted almost randomly in the host genome, and the error or mutation that inactivated the gene is random. If two organisms share the same ERV in the same location with the same inactivation mutations, then they almost certainly share them due to common inheritance and not two separate infections.
Researchers analyze shared ERV insertions across species to construct phylogenetic trees. For example, the common ERVs in simians indicate they share a common genome. When phylogenetic trees are constructed based on the pattern of ERVs, they indicate humans share more ERVs with chimps than either share with gorillas. Other examples are known. This is strong evidence for common descent.
2 - Shared Errors/Pseudogenes In a Genome.
In copyright law, there is a problem when determining if one source has copied another source because it is possible, particularly with topics in narrow subfields, that two authors could converge on a similar-sounding passage to describe the same concept. However, errors in the passages are independent of the subject of the text and of each other. Multiple shared errors, particularly in grammar or spelling, become increasingly improbable for two independent writings. If there are several shared errors between two passages the only reasonable explanation is that one is a copy of the other or that both were copied from a common source.
This same concept applies to pseudogenes. While it is possible that two independently evolved genes will look the same because they both do the same thing after an error invalidates a gene, the sharing of this same error between two species is extremely strong evidence showing that both species derived from the same source in which the mutation first appeared. By analyzing shared inactivation mutations in non-functional pseudogenes, scientists can construct phylogenetic trees and prove common descent.
One such example is hemoglobin; hemoglobin is the protein in red blood cells that transports oxygen to the bloodstream. Hemoglobin is made up of four parts called polypeptides, it has two copies of a part of the protein called alpha-globin and the same for beta-globin. The genes for alpha-globin can be found on chromosome #16, and the genes for beta-globin on chromosome #11. There are six sequences for the building of the polypeptides, five of them work, one doesn't. It's what's called a "pseudogene", so it doesn't work, but it's still recognized as a gene because of its similarity with real genes. So the errors in the gene render the gene defunct, non-functional. What's important about this is because it can be found in three organisms, the gorilla, the chimpanzee, and the human. They haven't searched in the bonobo and orangutan genomes, but by the pattern of evolution, it is presumably there, at least in the bonobo.
The human, gorilla, and chimpanzee are all African primates since they form a common clade, and this pseudogene isn't found in other primates or mammals, such as cats, dogs, whales, horses, bears, etc. This is evidence of a common ancestor, since only African apes share it, thus evidence for a common clade.
Another famous shared error that provides strong evidence for shared ancestry between humans and other simians is gluconolactone oxidase. This enzyme catalyzes the reactions needed to produce ascorbic acid (vitamin C). While the gene used to produce this enzyme is present in most animals, it has been inactivated in others due to mutation. Animals that can no longer synthesize vitamin C include simians, guinea pigs, and several species of fruit bats. Since vitamin C is readily available through the consumption of fruit, the inactivation of this gene was not a significant detriment despite the potential for scurvy. Hence, natural selection did not eliminate the mutated gene.
The mutation that causes the inactivation of the L-gluconolactone oxidase gene is different depending on the group the organism is in.
All extant guinea pigs share the same inactivation mutation, while all extant simians share a different mutation.
The likelihood of two different species sharing the same inactivation mutation is statistically improbable; a better explanation is that the sharing is actually due to common inheritance. The most recent common ancestor of all extant guinea pigs developed one mutation in the gene, while a different mutation developed in the most recent common ancestor in simians.
3 - The Hox Genes
The Hox genes are a set of regulatory genes common in all life forms that seem to be largely responsible for orchestrating the ontological development of an organism's body plan. Hox genes are not expressed as proteins but rather act to turn on and off expressed genes in the genome to develop specific body parts such as eyestalks or arms. Early in the development of the embryo, patterns of Hox genes will be turned on and off based on the cell's position relative to other cells and the perceived orientation of the embryo (up/down, left/right).
This pattern of activated Hox genes controls the development of what anatomical features emerge. By activating Hox genes in the lab or moving cells around once the Hox genes are activated significant changes occur in morphology (such as eyestalks instead of legs). Hox genes are fascinating to study in all aspects of biology, but they also offer several strong lines of evidence for common descent.
A striking element of Hox genes is that they are highly conserved. An embryologist can knock out a Hox gene in a fly, replace it with a similar one from an earthworm, and still wind up with a normally developed fly. Because the Hox genes are so important to the development of an organism, there is little room for beneficial mutation and natural selection acts to conserve the basic structure. (It could be argued this is a product of a "common designer", although there is no parallel in the design of synthetic objects). What really makes this powerful evidence for common descent is the pattern of the development of new Hox genes. New Hox genes arise from duplication of old Hox genes. One of the Hox genes is redundant and hence susceptible to evolutionary changes.
Researchers are able to take Hox genes that are found in more derived organisms that are not found in more ancestral organisms and show how the new Hox genes are slightly modified Hox genes from evolutionary older organisms. It is then possible to construct phylogenetic trees for the actual Hox genes. The amazing part is that this phylogenetic tree for the Hox genes matches phylogenetic trees for the organisms themselves. This only makes sense from the viewpoint of common descent.
4 - Chromosome Fusion
Another piece of evidence that makes clear the factual reality of common descent is chromosome fusion that occurs across a wide variety of species in different ways. The fusion of chromosomes decreases the chromosome numbers in a descendant species. (Alternatively, a split in a chromosome increases the chromosome number.) The pattern of these fusion events generates characteristic phylogenetic trees offering proof of common descent.
While all other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 looks almost identical to two of the chimpanzee's chromosomes stacked on one on top of the other, indicating chromosome fusion.
Chromosomes form light and dark bands on a karyotype that can be compared to see how similar they are. The light and dark banding patterns of the two chimp chromosomes match that of the single human one. Also, on the end of each chromosome are a series of repetitive DNA sequences called telomeres. These sequences are found typically only on the tips of the chromosome. For chromosome 2, scientists find them in the middle, as if the tips of two chromosomes merged together.
In addition, chromosomes have a centromere which links the two sister chromatids together. While there are usually only one of these distinct regions on a chromosome, there are two centromeres on chromosome 2. One is "non-functional", but its genetic code matches the other centromere from the second chimpanzee chromosome.
Clearly from this evidence human chromosome 2 is a fusion event between two chromosomes found in chimpanzees in distinct form. This means that humans inherited these chromosomes from a common ancestor with chimpanzees.
Keleman now presents what he thinks is evidence contrary to Evolution. All of his evidence is examples of claimed irreducible complexity (mostly from books over 100 years old, from non-experts or quote mined).
Generally, claims of irreducible complexity are fundamentally dishonest and misleading.
It's important to emphasize that the scientific method never claims to have the "final truth". There is nothing wrong with saying there may be parts of evolution that aren't fully understood.
But since the general pattern has been demonstrated from almost every aspect of biology (see above), pointing to one or two examples to which we (or more likely, the proponent as this is generally an argument from ignorance or incredulity) don't know all the stages, doesn't show that evolution is false. Rather all it shows is that further study is needed.
Furthermore, many of the examples of irreducible complexity (e.g the bacterial flagellum) do have an evolutionary model. But as soon as this is explained, proponents will move the goalposts and bring up a different example.
I'll list ten of his examples of claimed irreducible complexity:
1 - The male dragonflys' (quote) "mating apparatus".
I couldn't find any information about this, and his "evidence" for this claim is a quote from Robin John Tillyard from 1917.
2 - The Venus flytrap.
We have an evolutionary model for this.
3 - Parasites.
This is a very vague claim, but we do have many models for the evolution of parasites (e.g termite gut bacteria) which show how they adapted to the parasitic life by sometimes losing their now useless mechanisms.
4 - Mammal hair.
We have an evolutionary model for this
5 - Teeth.
We have an evolutionary model for this.
6 - Compound eyes.
We have an evolutionary model for this.
7 - Poison.
We have an evolutionary model for this.
8 - Blood circulation.
We have an evolutionary model for this.
9 - Arthropod segmentation.
We have an evolutionary model for this.
10 - How Gill arches become jaws.
We have an evolutionary model for this.
[Examples 4 to 10 are from Professor Richard B Goldschmidts' article against gradualism, not evolution. He himself accepted evolution with his hopeful monster hypotheses, which was never accepted.]
Keleman also claims that speciation has never been observed.
It is true that it is hard to observe speciation since the process is so gradual. Contrary to theistic misconceptions, evolution doesn't claim that a dog gave birth to a cat. Rather it is a series of tiny incremental changes which over billions of years leads to the extreme variation of life.
It is also difficult to exactly determine, in the here and now, when something is considered a new species. A common distinction is that once a species can, or will not interbreed, it's considered a new species.
Regardless, speciation has been observed and documented, in animals (Galapagos finches), fish (Cichlid fish), insects (mosquitoes), and plants (Laraha Tree). The existence of ring species is one of the clearest examples of speciation.
Keleman now moves on to the statistical improbability of [Abiogenesis and] evolution.
His numbers are mostly taken from (astronomist) F. Hoyles' and R. Shapiros' calculations. These calculations are known to be based on a couple of mistaken variables.
They assume the evolutionary process to be completely random.
They calculate the probability of modern life or enzymes emerging fully assembled ex-nihilo.
They don't take into account the billions of viable planets.
Since Keleman believes he has disproven [abiogenesis and] evolution he writes that his argument from design gives permission to believe.
As I touched on before, even if abiogenesis and evolution were disproven this still wouldn't be evidence for a god (especially one that hasn't even been shown to be possible).
The complexity of life can not be explained by a god, which is a complete non-answer (scientifically) and the god of the gaps fallacy. It is a hypothesis that doesn't explain any mechanism, doesn't offer predictions (unfalsifiable), seems to be impossible from our understanding of physics, and prevents further investigation.
It's like saying since we don't see how the ancient Egyptians could have built the pyramids without the wheel and advanced geometry, that it must have been built by aliens that haven't even been shown to exist.
Area 2: The precisely balanced [for life] laws of physics and chemistry
It's ironic that for a universe precisely balanced for life 99.99% of it is uninhabitable. Of that tiny percentage that's habitable, 66% is covered in saltwater and much of the landmass is either too hot, dry, or cold for human habitation.
Considering the above, there is no reason to suppose that the universe is perfectly balanced for life, much less human life. In fact, one would be more justified in saying that the universe is perfectly balanced for empty space or black holes and that the earth is perfectly balanced for bacteria.
Regardless, there is no proof that these constants are precisely balanced for anything.
In order to even begin this argument, you would need to show:
That it's possible for these constants to be anything other than their current value, and how much they can change.
That the claim (balanced for life) would be impossible with any other value. [There has been a paper that shows that within a 10% variation, our universe could still form.]
That life didn't evolve to fit within these constants.
Even if the above were shown, that we can only wonder at this because otherwise, we wouldn't be here.
Since Keleman makes no effort to prove the above and merely regurgitates facts that show "perfect balance", his argument is a non-starter.
Something that Keleman doesn't even consider is what does this claim of intelligent design says about god.
If God is in the details, then don't the details reveal what God is like? The details show whatever is behind these constants and processes is amoral and completely indifferent to our happiness, pain, or pleasure. It shows a god who is willing to let millions of conscious beings suffer for millions of years until he reaches his favorite creation when he could have just waved them into existence.
The price of claiming intelligent design is gods' benevolence and, ironically, gods' intelligence.
Improvements: I can't see how this argument could be improved.
CHAPTER 5
PROOF FROM JEWISH HISTORY
In Chapter five, Keleman attempts to prove God from Jewish history. His summaries of Jewish history contain numerous errors which I'll address after his main argument.
His argument consists of two main points:
Jewish exceptionalism (he specifically mentions the success of monotheism).
Jewish survival.
A common problem with both of these points is that Keleman doesn't explain how these points even imply a god (never mind God). And that almost every culture can point to something unique to them (Christianity changed from a persecuted minority to the state religion, the rapid spread of Islam, the perseverance of Zoroastrianism, the age of Hinduism [and the perfect counter-example, the correlation between education and atheism]). Uniqueness doesn't imply the supernatural.
Proof 1: Jewish exceptionalism and the success of monotheism.
Keleman writes that the Middle East of thousands of years ago was a hotbed of Polytheism, understandably ancient man seeing all the different forces in the world would ascribe a god to each force, yet the Jews chose the irrational concept of monotheism.
I don't see this difference, why would ascribing one controlling god to all forces be more irrational than ascribing multiple gods (after all, a single person can do multiple tasks).
Regardless, the above isn't true. Even thousands of years ago there was (a short lived) Egyptian monotheism, Babylonian monotheism, Zoroastrian monotheism, etc.
Nor is there any evidence that ancient Judaism was monotheistic. In fact, there is compelling textual evidence and archeological evidence that Judaism evolved from the polytheistic Canaanite pantheon to monolatry and finally (post-Babylonian exile) became monotheistic, (with further changes in the Talmudic and Gaonic era).
Regarding the success of monotheism. There are approximately 7.9 billion people in the world. Of this around 54% are Christians (of which 17.7% are Catholic who are only nominally monotheists), Muslims, or Jews [the nones are around 15.6% and rising].
If this were a valid argument (and not an argument ad-populom), shouldn't it prove the validity of Christianity?
But this is all pointless, since even if you could attribute the success of monotheism to Judaism (and not to Christianity (the popularizers) or Zoroastrianism (the original? Perhaps)). How would this prove anything about God, is it impossible for something to become popular without it being a god? [all hail our lord and savior, their spinnyness the fidget spinner.]
Proof 2: Jewish survival.
This is Kelemans' timeline of Jewish history (semi or non-historical events in square brackets). I've directly quoted as many of his more... interesting sentences as would fit into this summary.
Before Common Era: 1313. [After being enslaved for 210 years with terrible persecution, the Israelites go free after a series of miraculous plagues. The Jews emerged from prehistory to slavery in Egypt. As they are the only group to have escaped from Egypt, historians are at a loss to explain how they escaped. Archeologists are now beginning to suspect that they escaped during a series of natural disasters detailed by eyewitnesses in the Ipuwar papyrus and the El Arish monolith.[
This is completely false. The academic consensus is that the historical and archeological evidence shows that the Biblical Exodus never happened and that the Israelites are of Canaanite origin, at most if it did happen it was a small exodus that was absorbed into the Canaanite population that would become the Israelites, completely unlike that which was described in the Bible.
The Ipuwar papyrus/Admonitions of Ipuwar doesn't describe the Biblical plagues nor is it an eyewitness account. It's an example of the poetic lamentation style and the Didactic genre of the 12th Dynasty. The surviving text dates to the 19th Dynasty (around 1250) and textually dated to the 12th Dynasty (1991-1803). Not 1313, the date Keleman proposes for the Exodus.
Bible thumpers are always saying the Bible must be read in context, yet they remove all context from the Admonitions.
Read in context it is clear that the Admonitions isn't an eyewitness account but rather political/religious propaganda.
It is clear that it doesn't describe the Biblical plagues. They will tell you about the verse "the river is blood", but leave out the previous verses describing the death and destruction ("blood is everywhere", "many dead are buried in the river") or the verse "men are ibises" [maybe that was a plague the bible forgot about].
It doesn't describe the atmosphere at the time of the Exodus but rather a state of affairs where the world has been turned upside down, where the high-born are brought low, where the slaves become the masters, where the Egyptians are as foreigners in their land. It also describes foreigners coming in and taking over Egypt, not escaping it.
As for the El Arish monolith. It's dated to 200 BCE and unlike Kelemans' claims, which seem to come from pseudo-historian Immanuel Velikovsky's mistaken interpretation of the inscription, it doesn't depict the Exodus. But rather is a legendary text concerning the gods Shu, god of air and sunlight, and his son Geb, god of the earth.
Sean Mewhinney wrote in an article debunking Velikovsky, “His interpretations of the el-Arish inscription are so obviously, blatantly wrong in so many particulars that it is hard to see why there should have been any controversy over the facts of the case, excepting only minor details. We find names altered and combined, words mistranslated, characters confused with one another or split in two, and events set in the wrong time and place. To permit Velikovsky to make the associations he does, one would have to take a sledgehammer to the shrine, smash it to bits, and reassemble the pieces in a different order. The method—a sort of ‘free association’ in which a whole complex of ideas is summoned up by an isolated word or phrase—must be rejected as well”.
Furthermore, the 1313 date for the Exodus is very problematic. At this time the Pharaoh was Horemheb, an Egyptian general. His reign was peaceful and stable, and he is considered the ruler who stabilized the country after his divisive predecessor Akhenaten. It also means that the City Ramesses, which the Bible mentions is an anachronism (Ramesses II, after whom it's named, only became Pharaoh in the late 12th century BCE).
[1273. After 40 years wandering in the desert, where in all probability, they were attacked by armed nomads and desert kings as described in the Bible. The Israelites enter Israel and their 7 year conquest of Canaan begins. The archeological record in consonance with the Book of Joshua, suggests that the Jews triumphed over the natives in a series of wildly destructive battles. A journalist reported about the walls of Jericho, "due to erosion, we don't know how the walls were destroyed. Kathleen Kenyon (the lead archaeologist at Jericho) thinks it may have been an earthquake, which the Israelites attributed to divine intervention". Similar ruins were found at the biblical sites of Gibeon and Hazor.]
Again, this is completely false. Archeologists and Historians reject the Biblical origin of the Israelites. The overwhelming archaeological evidence of largely indigenous origins for the Israelites leaves no room for an exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai.
Nor is there any sign of a wholesale conquest of Canaan, which at the time barely had any fortified cities and a very small population (contrary to the Bible). In fact, at this time Egypt actually controlled Cannan (until the Bronze Age collapse in the 12th century BCE).
The walls of Jericho are dated to around 1500 BCE, long before the Biblical conquest. The city itself in the 13th century BCE was small and poor, almost insignificant and unfortified. And there was no destruction layer in this period. The same is true for Hazor. Regarding Gibeon, while there is evidence of early and middle Bronze Age cities, there is no trace of a city during this time period (late Bronze Age).
701. Sennacherib besieges Jerusalem and is defeated by a mysterious plague.
A complete defeat is unlikely as Hezekiah submitted to Sennacherib at the end of the campaign. Nor do contemporary records, even those written by Assyria's enemies, mention the Assyrians being defeated at Jerusalem.
Regardless, sickness spreading rapidly through a cramped, unsanitary army encampment is hardly miraculous and has happened many times throughout history.
586. The first Temple is destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar (II), king of Babylon and all the Judeans are exiled. This should have been the end of a remarkable history.
The Babylonians would generally only exile the elites of a captured population and it is calculated (by the maximal Biblical numbers of exiled people) that only around 25% of the Judeans were exiled to Babylon. Archeology shows that while Jerusalem was completely destroyed, other parts of Judah continued to be inhabited.
516. Cyrus allows the Judeans to return to Judah and the second temple is constructed under Persian scrutiny.
History shows that Cyrus had a general policy of allowing exiled people to return to their homeland and there is currently no evidence of a Judean specific decree. Archeology suggests that the return was a trickle taking a couple of decades, instead of a couple of big returns as the Bible writes.
332. Alexander the Great defeats the Persians and conquers Israel.
167. The Greeks (Selucids) outlawed Judaism and Jewish education, and converted the Temple for pagan worship.
According to the book of Maccabees, this was in response to a revolt that deposed Antiochus' pick for High Priest, in an attempt to strengthen his hold over the region
Antiochus sided with the Hellenized Jews.
164. The Maccabean revolt, a tiny band of guerillas defeated the most powerful military on the face of the globe. After this they rededicated the Temple.
The Seleucids were hardly the most powerful military force, nor were all their troops in Judea. The ultimate victory owes more to the death of Antiochus which resulted in a power struggle for succession, than to the military prowess of the Maccabees.
40. The Romans conquer Israel.
This was in 63 BCE.
37. Herod is made vassal king of Judea by the Romans. [To celebrate his victory over Jewish guerillas who had so troubled the Greeks (...almost 200 years earlier), Herod executes 46 members of the Sanhedrin.]
4/1 Common Era:. Herod dies. Rome imposes direct control over Jerusalem.
The providence of Judah was split by his sons and sister, it wasn't put under direct Roman control.
Keleman writes that this was 44 CE, which I'll assume is a typo.
[46. The Jews attempt their first revolt against Roman rule.]
I don't know what Keleman meant by this and he doesn't list any sources.
66. The Jews [second] revolt against Rome. In retaliation the Romans crucify hundreds of Jews weekly, flay Torah scholars. And in 70 CE, they destroy the second Temple. The end of the Jewish state was at hand, and the end of the Jewish people should not have lagged far behind.
Strangely, Keleman doesn't mention the Kitos War(115-117 CE). Major revolts by diasporic Jews in Cyrene, Cyprus, Mesopotamia, and Aegyptus spiraled out of control, resulting in a widespread slaughter of Roman citizens and others (200,000 in Cyrene, 240,000 in Cyprus according to Cassius Dio) by the Jewish rebels.
135. The Bar Kokhba revolt fails, this leads to a Roman-orchestrated orgy of worldwide antisemitism that leaves 580,000 Jews dead.
Between 200,000 and 400,000 of the Jewish casualties were military casualties (some historians believe that this number is exaggerated). It wasn't a "worldwide orgy of antisemitism", the Roman response was primarily directed at Judea and Samaria. The Jews elsewhere (Golan, Galilee, etc) were completely spared.
470. Persian Emperor Firiz attempts to exterminate the Jews and kills half of the Jewish population of Ipahan.
I can't find any information about this.
1095. Jews in Europe were subject to centuries of antisemitism which culminates in the Crusades (first: 1095-1099 second: 1147-1150 third: 1189-1192). During these bloody years Christians on holy pilgrimage to Jerusalem slaughtered thousands of Jews at a time.
1347. The Black Death kills a quarter of Europe, many blame the Jews and hundreds of Jewish communities are destroyed.
1400-1492. The Inquisition begins to gain power and in 1492 convinces King Ferdinand II to expel Jews from Spain if they don't convert to christianity.
1648. The Cossack uprising. In Ukraine, Bogdan Chmielnicki (Bohdan Khmelnytsky) and his Cossacks wipe out a third of the Jewish population. King John Casimir exiled the Jews from Chernigov, Poltava, Kiev and parts of Podolia.
Modern scholarship estimates that between 40,000 and 50,000 Jews were killed by the Cossacks and their collaborators.
1915. Grand Duke Nicholas orders the relocation of Jews living in any area ever occupied by the German army.
He did this to all "enemy" nations. This partially contributed to Tsar Nicholas II's decision to remove the Grand Duke and personally assume command of the Russian forces.
1917. Ukrainians and White Russians join forces to kill 200.000 Jews. Another 120,000 died in 500 pogroms in the next two years.
This estimation seems a bit exaggerated, literature on the subject places the total number of victims anywhere in the range of 50,000 to 200,000 killed or mortally wounded.
1942-1945. The Holocaust. 6 million Jews were systematically murdered by the Nazis, a third of the total Jewish population of Europe. Had Hitler won the war, there would be no Jews today.
How Keleman knows this is anyone's guess.
How any of this is evidence for God and not a complete non-sequitur, Keleman leaves up to the reader. But even a cursory reading shows that although Jewish history is tragic and rife with anti-semitic atrocities, at no point were all Jews in danger of annihilation at the same time (for example, Jews in the Ottoman empire experienced relative peace during the Cossack uprising) and that there were long periods of peace.
The survival of Jews requires no supernatural assistance [personally, I find that this assumption is an insult and belittles the great lengths that Jews have gone to preserve themselves and their tradition] and can be understood to have been influenced by the following factors:
Those Jews have always had many communities all over the Globe.
Unlike pagans, Judaism wasn't seen as idolatry to be completely destroyed, but rather as second-class citizens.
A strong sense of national and self-identity.
Jews segregated themselves and were segregated, into their own tight-knit communities.
That Judaism enmeshed ethnicity and religion.
Nor are Jews aren't the only ethnicity/religion that has been persecuted for thousands of years, the Romani and Zoroastrians, being but two examples, have also suffered from unending persecution.
1948. For the first time in history, a nation twice exiled returns to its' homeland to establish a state. The following day a ragged band of Holocaust survivors drove off five mechanized Arab armies.
I always found it ironic that something religion couldn't achieve in almost 2000 years, secular Zionism achieved in 200.
1967. The Six-day war. To this day military experts are at a loss to explain Israels' victory.
Not really, there are many books written about how Israel won. To oversimplify it there are a number of contributing factors.
Surprise. By launching a preemptive attack Israel took the Arab countries by surprise which allowed taking out their air forces on the ground. This gave the IAF full control of the skies.
Intelligence. Both traditional military intelligence and human intelligence, like Eli Cohen, who among other things, was said to have posed as a trusted advisor to a Syrian general and made the comment that cedar trees should be planted by Syrian positions on the Golan Heights so as to provide shade to the soldiers there. The trees also provided perfect positioning points for Israeli artillery.
Skill. The Israeli soldiers were highly skilled. This was probably the main disadvantage of the Arab armies, while they had advanced weapons from the Soviets, their soldiers were unable to use them effectively.
Organization. The Arab countries didn't coordinate their actions, each of their armies was acting on their own. In fact, Egypt even failed to coordinate its own troops.
1973. The Yom Kippur war. Unprepared, Israel lost ground but after 18 days, Israel won.
18 days, a huge amount of US military aid, and many of the same factors relevant to the 6 Day War. It was also the most disastrous war in Israeli history and as a direct consequence, Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan resigned.
Keleman writes that today (the book was published in 1990) Israel suffers from almost daily terror attacks. Still, Jews have their state, Hebrew has been resurrected and many have returned to the faith of their fathers. [And just as many, if not more, have left it.]
He writes that we feebly struggle to explain the survival of the Jewish people, thus the theological solution is attractive.
Again, I see no reason how this proves God, a god, or Karma. Especially since there are reasonable natural explanations, so Jewish survival isn't absurdly impossible.
But even if we didn't have an explanation and the Jewish survival was unlikely, all we would have is another example of unlikely things sometimes happening. Sometimes gamblers have winning streaks.
God's Covenant
The next part is the most disgusting and insensitive section of the whole book.
Keleman asks: if Jews merit special protection why have they suffered so terribly throughout history?
He attempts to answer this with verses from the Bible (without showing how the god he presumes from the above argument is YHWH, or that the Bible is YHWHs' word and not a man-made creation cobbled together from separate traditions).
"(3.) If you follow my decrees and are careful to obey my commands.
(4.) I will send you rain in its season, and the ground will yield its crops and the trees their fruit.
(5.) Your threshing will continue until grape harvest and the grape harvest will continue until planting, and you will eat all the food you want and live in safety in your land.
(6.) I will grant peace in the land, and you will lie down and no one will make you afraid…
(14.) But if you will not listen to me and carry out all these commands.
(15.) And if you reject my decrees and abhor my laws and fail to carry out all my commands and so violate my covenant...
(17.) I will set my face against you so that you will be defeated by your enemies; those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee even when no one is pursuing you...
(22.) I will send wild animals against you, and they will rob you of your children, destroy your cattle and make you so few in number that your roads will be deserted…
(31.) I will turn your cities into ruins and lay waste to your sanctuaries…
(33.) I will scatter you among the nations and will draw out my sword and pursue you...
(39.) Those of you who are left will waste away in the lands of their enemies because of their sins; also because of their ancestors’ sins they will waste away." (Leviticus 26:3-39)
Keleman deceptively cherrypicks from the above verses and only quotes the curses that will support his claims. The actual verses contain many more curses and adds, that are hardly applicable to much of Jewish suffering throughout history.
He also ignores that the verses in the beginning which imply that only if the Jews follow YHWHs' commandments and keep the covenant they will have the land and enjoy plenty. Yet today when over 50% of Israelis identify as secular, 20% as atheists and only 10% as practicing Orthodox Jews, the Jews again live in Israel and it is, without doubt, the richest and most powerful it has ever been.
According to Biblical scholarship, these curses are common contract stipulations and curses found in many ancient Near East contracts. In fact, the Code of Hammurabi uses the exact same phrasing.
Keleman continues question verses.
"(16.)...They will forsake me and break the covenant...
(17.) And in that day I will become angry with them and forsake them, I will hide my face from them, and they will be destroyed." (Deuteronomy 31:14‐17)
Keleman writes that we see God's covenant goes two ways. When Jews follow God's word they are put above normal historical processes and preserve them. But if the Jews don't follow God's word, they are subject to natural historical processes.
(Keleman seems to have invented this implication that the Jew's existence is impossible naturally. Nowhere do the verses imply that Jews will be returned to natural processes if they fail to comply. Rather the verses state that God will personally curse them and devastate them).
He writes that both the Talmud and Historians confirm that prior to the destruction of both Temples [his historical source is Paul Johnsons' A History of the Jews, a biblical literalist] and World War II confirm the spread of such assimilation.
This is a highly disturbing view which delegitimizes and demonizes other approaches to Judaism and is historically baseless. In fact, it could be argued that some of the tragic events in Jewish history were actually caused by the "religious"[for lack of a better term]. Such as the destruction of the Second Temple, which was directly caused by the Jewish rebellion and the Bar Kokhba rebellion.
Ignoring this disturbing insinuation, it should be noted that Kelemans' predictor doesn't apply to many of the events listed in his timeline (i.e the Cossack uprising).
Nor does it align with peak periods or peak areas of "assimilation"(aka non-Orthodoxy). One could argue that there was more "assimilation" in Europe in the late 18th century than in the 19th, when a sort of equilibrium formed, and that there was more "assimilation" in the United States yet they were completely spared from the Holocaust.
Another issue is that during many of these events, it was the less "assimilated" who suffered the most. Some historians estimate that around 70% of Jews killed during the Holocaust were Orthodox, while many non-Orthodox or secular Jews were able to escape in part because of their education.
Keleman attempts to answer this by writing that either the pious are held to a higher standard, or that they were responsible for ignoring the spiritual needs of their brethren.
But this raises the question, what type of God would cause 70% of the victims to not even be the "sinners" while allowing many of the "sinners" to escape and killing millions of innocents for no fault of their own (I doubt the children who lived in a remote village and have never even met a non-Orthodox Jew are "guilty" of ignoring their brethrens' spiritual needs).
This leads into Kelemans' final chapter and how he addresses the Problem of Evil.
He finishes the chapter by writing, [in short] the Jews can explain why the Jewish people have suffered, it is now incumbent upon humanity to explain why the Jewish people have survived.
This is the fallacy of question-begging, but humanity has a perfect explanation for the history of the Jewish people:
"If there is a God, He will have to beg my forgiveness."
- A phrase that was carved by a prisoner on the walls of a cell in the Mauthausen concentration camp.
"I become almost wild and shout at them: - To whom are you reciting Kaddish? Do you still believe? And what do you believe, whom are you thanking? Are you thanking the Lord for his mercy and taking away our brothers and sisters, our fathers and mothers? No, no! It is not true; there is no God. If there were a God, he would not allow such misfortune, such transgression, where innocent small children, only just born, are killed, people who want only to do honest work and make themselves useful to the world are killed! and you, living witnesses of the great misfortune, remain thankful. Whom are you thanking?"
- Chil Rajchman, The Last Jew of Treblinka.
Improvements: I don't see how this argument can be improved.
CHAPTER 6
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL
[Auther note: chapter 6 and the improvements to his arguments are quite rough and need to be improved]
In chapter 6 Keleman spectacularly fails to understand the problem of Evil for a tri-omni God and presents the most basic version of it, why do bad things happen to good people.
Keleman writes that although this is one of the most troubling concepts for believers, it is not proof that God doesn't exist.
Throughout the book, nowhere is it necessary or shown that the god Keleman tries to argue into existence is a tri-omni God. Therefore the problem of Evil is irrelevant for Kelemans' god.
Regardless, While this may be true of Kelemans' basic formulation, it's not true of other formulations such as the evidential problem of Evil -Intense suffering which a tri-omni being could have prevented without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse, exists. A tri-omni being would prevent the occurrence of any intense suffering it could unless it could not do so without thereby losing some greater good or permitting some evil equally bad or worse. Therefore a tri-omni being doesn't exist- or the problem of animal suffering dramatically lowers the probability of a tri-omni God existing.
Because of his formulation, he prefaces his answer by asking how much divine injustice we actually know of, how many truly evil people do we see benefitting. How can we know who's truly evil, what they do in private, or what their motivations are?
This is rather strange coming from someone who believes in objective morality. To use Kelemans' own example, surely if we see a person murdering guiltless, non-threatening humans on a regular basis, we can consider this person evil and deserving of divine punishment.
He writes: how many good people do we see suffering? How can we know what's a reward and what's a punishment? A man might win a plane ticket which then crashes, or a woman might need surgery and fall in love with her doctor.
Keleman approaches this very myopically. We don't judge the existence of evil based on a few scattered short-term examples, we base it on a general long-term pattern and of course, there are many cases of evil people who don't die tragically and ostensibly enjoy life, and good people who die of starvation or are enslaved.
Regardless, this raises the question, why does an omnipotent God need to cause this suffering when he could just as easily achieve the same goal without it (i.e the woman could meet the Doctor at an Arachim seminar).
He gives two answers for the problem of Evil.
Answer 1: If a God exists there might exist a soul and a metaphysical infinite afterlife, and Judaism indeed posits such an afterlife. It is possible that God gives the Evil their reward in this world and reserves punishment for the eternal infinite afterlife, which would be a purer and more intense punishment. Likewise, perhaps God gives good people their punishment in this world and reserves their reward for the infinite afterlife.
The claim of a soul and an afterlife (and an infinite one at that) is completely separate from a god and needs to be independently proven. It is a complete non-sequitur to ad-hoc posit an afterlife to explain the problem of Evil. We might as well say (and Occams' Razor dictates) that this God isn't tri-omni and is indifferent or unaware of humanity.
As an aside, why should we suppose that God would reward evildoers in this world and punish them in the infinite world?
Firstly, infinite suffering is not a just punishment for anyone, no matter how evil.
Secondly, perhaps a good God should give evildoers their punishment in this world, so as to reward them for the good they did in this world in the infinite afterlife as the ultimate gesture of mercy.
Answer 2: God is so complex as to defy human understanding. Man might simply be incapable of understanding and morally evaluating the actions of an Omniscient, Omnipotent being.
This is a non-sequitur and a cop-out. None of Kelemans' arguments have shown this god to be more complex than a human can understand.
How can we differentiate if this god is good, evil, or perhaps just so complex it's indifferent to human experiences (whenever humans walk on grass we kill billions of bacteria). If this god is inscrutable from his actions, how can we say anything about his nature?
Regardless if a god can't even do good that a human in his position could do (for example, save the millions of children who die each year from starvation), is he really good, all-powerful, and all-knowing?
As I've shown above in both cases we can equally deduce the opposite conclusion (instead of a tri-omni god, an indifferent or evil god). Therefore I don't think we can consider these as good answers.
Nor are either of these answers for the other formulations of the Problem of Evil.
Comments